Codes of Honor, Bogus Freebie for Will save?

[Ichabod]

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.

The amoral adventurer is discouraged by the system because the benefits of a code of honor are so great.

There are some mechanical things I could complain about with Conan, but it would be pointless because they are rooted in the fact that the game uses the d20 engine. Those differences between Conan and D&D are frequently the things I think Conan has done well.

All of the things I do complain about here have a common link. When something is clearly better than something else, whether it's bardiches and greatswords vs. other weapons*, Power Attack & Cleave vs. most other combat feats, barbarian specials vs. borderer/nomad ones, or having a code of honor vs. not having one, there's a basic problem that people will make characters similar to each other or get punished for not doing so. I don't want to see people punished for trying to do something different.

* I actually am not that bothered by the huge damage these do as the brutality of combat has some positive elements, it's how much more damage they do than other weapons that heavily encourages non-thieves to eschew crappier options. Yet, people seem to think that the complaint is the 2d10 damage, when the reality is that 1d6 is useless in a 2d10, MDS of 20 world.

It seems like most of the people here don't worry about such things. That's fine with me. If people don't care, they don't care. But, the resistance to trying to diversify the game seems odd to me. A code of honor is still a benefit if you only give the allegiance and corruption and feat prerequisite benefits of it, so there's still an incentive to try to have one. But, as things stand, the discrepancy between having a code of honor and not having one is absurd and massively punishes anyone who has a character concept that wouldn't plausibly start the game with a code of honor.

 

[Majestic7]

But, as things stand, the discrepancy between having a code of honor and not having one is absurd and massively punishes anyone who has a character concept that wouldn't plausibly start the game with a code of honor.

I think I already pointed out that, if properly implemented, having a Code of Honour and following it can punish a character massively more than not having one. I agree that if CoH becomes just a mechanical free bonus without social implications within the game world, it is not balanced. If the CoH is not tested at regular intervals, there is really no point has having one or allowing the players to have such. It really depends on the style of the game.

This same importance of the effects of the game world vs. seemingly mechanical imbalance applies to weapons as well. Two-handed weapons are vastly superior in the damage they deal to shortswords and daggers, for example. However, it is pretty impossible to smuggle a greatsword to a high-society party where no weapons are allowed, while hiding a dagger on your body is entirely possible. Likewise, although a Zingaran nobleman might well do more damage wielding a bardiche, his peers expect him to use an arming sword or the like or he will be looked down as a peasant-minded simpleton.

 

[argo]

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.

The amoral adventurer is discouraged by the system because the benefits of a code of honor are so great.

Yet, I don't find having a Code to be "clearly better" than not. And I certainly don't agree that the system "discourages" amoral adventurer types. If the GM advails himself of the opportunities provided by the Code's "penalties" it can work out to be quite balanced against the freedom enjoyed by players without a Code. My own experience IMC has generally shown this to be the case.

Of course this does bring up the old saw... you should not balance a mechanical benefit with a roleplaing drawback. Which is generally a true thing. And if you want to argue that point then I guess I have to admit a certain failing there. However, this particular roleplaying drawback is so throughly rooted in the genre that I'm ok with it even if it isn't the best game design.

But that is a different point from saying that the benefits of a code somehow "punish" players who choose not to go that route. That I just don't see happening at all.

Later.

 

[Ichabod]

Well, if some don't see the massive benefits of a code of honor (much stronger than Iron Will), I don't see the significant drawbacks of role-playing a code of honor.

People keep saying it's more dangerous to have a code of honor. I don't believe it. GM's aren't impersonal gods in anything I've ever been involved in. They don't let players get away with ignoring danger, like the honorless are supposedly able to do. They don't put honorable characters in unusually difficult situations. Some games may be much more lethal than others, but it's such a pain creating characters, that I rarely find GMs who are interested in characters dying. They put honorable characters in the same difficult situations that honorless characters would be in ... because that's what makes playing fun - the challenge.

Now, if everybody wanted to have a code of honor or nobody wanted to have one, then it's fine. The GM will come up with adventures that adjust for the former group being stronger than the latter.

The place where it breaks down badly is when some of the party has codes and some don't. I don't find a lot of parties, at least in campaigns, whose members couldn't care less about each other. Ironically, we have one that is close. Anyway, the point is that as soon as the honorable "has" to do something, everybody has to. The honorable get all of the benefits of a CoH while everyone else has any supposed drawbacks and none of the benefits. Or, it's time to start creating new characters.

And, again, even if people lose CoHs, they might as well start with them and take the benefits as long as possible. So, there's never a reason to create a new character who isn't supposed to be honorable, which leads to my complaint about the restriction on character creation. As long as one player wants to have an honorable character, it behooves everybody to have one even if 5 minutes into the first adventure everybody loses their honorable status.

The party of the honorable barbarian, the honorable soldier, the dishonorable thief, and the honorless scholar just doesn't make any sense as the latter two get none of the benefits while having the exact same adventures as the former two. The longer the honorable can hold on to their honor, the longer the latter two get screwed by not choosing to be honorable in the first place. It's actually only fair if they do lose their honorable status. As long as they don't, they got freebie benefits. Yes, freebie benefits for the reason explained - everyone is having the same adventures (at least in any typical campaign).

Just to belabor the point, even if you have a party with the "faces" and the "black ops" where the black ops members do all of the dirty deeds (which is sort of what we have), the black ops might as well have started with codes and waited for the GM to drop the hammer on their behavior. And, it makes the GM's life more difficult to create situations where it's equally advantageous to be honorable and to be lacking honor. The natural tendency in my view is to not reward the supposed freedom of the latter, so the latter just get screwed.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

When you look at the Codes of Honor, they are very complex and can be hard to follow. To reward someone for good roleplaying, you give them experience points, thus it is the same with the Code of Honor.

Besides, Hyboria is a tough world, there has to be some perks in order to survive - and it by no means says that you will NOT fail your saves.

Also, if you do not like it, CHANGE IT....

 

[Daz]

The amoral adventurer is discouraged by the system because the benefits of a code of honor are so great.

There are some mechanical things I could complain about with Conan, but it would be pointless because they are rooted in the fact that the game uses the d20 engine. Those differences between Conan and D&D are frequently the things I think Conan has done well.

All of the things I do complain about here have a common link. When something is clearly better than something else, whether it's bardiches and greatswords vs. other weapons*, Power Attack & Cleave vs. most other combat feats, barbarian specials vs. borderer/nomad ones, or having a code of honor vs. not having one, there's a basic problem that people will make characters similar to each other or get punished for not doing so. I don't want to see people punished for trying to do something different.

I agree about the power attack and bardiches and greatswords but not about the code of honor. In my campaign the party castrated a noble's favorite warhorse out of spite, framed his brother, goaded the noble into killing his brother and then took got the noble outlawed and received his horse in compensation. Then the honorless types went and decided to defraud the heir of the brother they framed and the honorable one drew the line there. The dishonorable ones got a stack of money off of that and bought better armor than the honorable one could afford. Similarly the dishonorable ones got to have more fate points to do cool stuff since their lack of honor resulted in them being knocked down to -10 and needing to spend a point on left for dead much less often. I found the system to be a great replacement for D&D style alignments and very balanced, at least the way I GM...

 

[Clovenhoof]

Daz, your post serves well as a rebuttal to Ichabod's post two up. It shows that you in fact can cater for honourable and dishonourable characters alike.
I suppose the noble and his brother were dishonourable, else I wouldn't understand why the honourable characters were fine framing them but not redeeming them.

My party currently has two chars with CoH and two without. A fifth character recently deceased _due_ to his honourless behaviour (he abandoned his comrades in battle, but was pursued by the enemy and taken) and will now be replaced by an honourable one. I haven't imposed any tests of honour yet, but that will certainly come rather sooner than late.

Ichabod does make a good point: when you impose "tests of honour", you should not force the honourless characters to take part in it. Also the honourable char(s) should be able to overcome the test on their own. If the honourless chars are involved all the time anyway, maybe they will become honourable over the time, though. ^^

 

[Daz]

I suppose the noble and his brother were dishonourable, else I wouldn't understand why the honourable characters were fine framing them but not redeeming them.

Well since that was probably my favorite scene in the campaign, I'll explain the whole thing.

Main characters for this scene:
Koldran Blodoks: honorable PC
Snorri Hestageldir: dishonorable PC
Sigvid Freysgodi: local bigman NPC
Runolf Hlammandi: Sigvid's brother
Osvald Arinbjornson: Local farmer
Other PCs and NPCs about but they were the main ones.

The PCs are taking part in a wedding festival with games etc. They've just finished wining a ball game by beating the opposing team senseless with their bats and then they decide to watch a horse fight.

Sigvid and Osvald own the two stallions that will fight but Runolf has drugged his brother's horse in order to win by gambling. The PCs talks to the NPCs and do some gambling. Sigvid is arrogant and the party gets along with Osvald due to his daughters being of marriagable age. They eventually bet against Sigvid.

Once the fight starts Sigvid's horse goes berzerk thanks to Runolf having done very badly at Craft (Heralism). The other horse panics and Sigvid's horse escapes and starts attacking people. Koldran works at restraining the horse while Snorri gets the bright idea to castrate it in an attempt to get it to calm down (which doesn't work) and then sneaks off.

Then lots of arguements break out about what happens to the large amounts of money that was bet on the horse fight and when its discovered that the horse has been castrated Sigvid swears that he'll kill whoever did that. Snorri, from his hiding place, then attempts to throw the horse's organ at Runolf's feet but misses and hits Sigvid in the head with it. After a great deal more angry shouting Sigvid (which some manipulation by the PCs who are very angry at Sigvid for his claims that he won the bet on the horse fight and that they should pay up) decided his brother did it and kills his brother before being run off by a lynch mob of angry Vikings.

The PCs then take the gelded horse home and later kill Sigvid when he shows up to try to take back his horse. Since Sigvid was a kinslayer the PCs don't get in trouble for that. Now Runolf's son is the heir to the (sizable) property of both brothers but a bunch of claimants come forward demanding slices of Sigvid's land. Koldran feels bad about his role in the death of his father and uncle and wants to go to a chieftan and pay him to champion Runolf's son to make sure that the boy gets his rightful patrimony. Snorri ensures that the chieftan they go to is the most long-winded in the area. While the chieftan is blathering on and on in the inheiritance trial Snorri runs off to steal whatever he can from Sigvid's house while Koldran stays and supports the kid at the trial.

Koldran is no angel (probably borderline True Nuetral/LE in D&D terms) but he's honorable and Snorri doesn't have any honor whatsoever (non-stupid CE in D&D terms). Koldran gets a bonus to will saves and Snorri gets to do all kinds of fun despicable things. The party thought that that was very well balanced.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Aaaah now I get it. I misunderstood you in your first post. Very well. Nice story. ^^