Fanaticism and Sense of Duty

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anders

What about someone who says "my country, right or wrong..."

Sense of Duty or Fanaticism?

Says it, neither one. Genuinely acts like it's true when there's a reasonable argument is Sense of Duty. Acts like it's true even when it obviously is not is Fanaticism. Fanaticism is effectively the *insane* form of Sense of Duty, where absolutely nothing rivals the importance or restrains the scope of the duty.

A test I've used for this is if you have Sense of Duty you are willing to die for the cause if you can't think of an alternate plan that stands a reasonable chance of providing similar levels of benefits. Fanaticism means you actively *look for* the chance to die for the cause, looking for alternatives or considering whether the cause would actually gain anything are just disloyal waffling.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Fanaticism means you actively *look for* the chance to die for the cause, looking for alternatives or considering whether the cause would actually gain anything are just disloyal waffling.

I dunno, that sounds more like Extreme Fanaticism

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I dunno, that sounds more like Extreme Fanaticism

Maybe, but even base Fanaticism is worth a lot of points, as much as SCF 12 versions of disadvantages that really are likely to get you killed like On the Edge or Trickster. It needs to be seriously risky.

I think with Extreme Fanaticism is more like you aren't just looking, your are actively trying to engineer situations where you can die for the Cause. And of course looking for a chance to have everybody around you die for the cause too. An ordinary Fanatic might not care if his fellow adventurers die, but he doesn't necessarily think he's doing them a favor by helping make this sacrifice for the Truth, whether they wanted to or not.

[Anders]

The description of Fanaticism says "You might even be willing to die for it!" (emphasis mine), so I feel that your interpretation is a little extreme.

[Kromm]

Fanaticism and Sense of Duty produce completely different behaviors. I've put the major points of contrast in boldface.

If you have Fanaticism, you take the side of a cause – nation, organization, person, philosophy, religion, etc. – with violence. Before you say, "No, that isn't it!", remember that most violence is emotional, intellectual, or social rather than physical. If you oppress, shun, undercut, publicly decry, deny the rights of, or try to brainwash or forcibly "convert" individuals opposed to your chosen cause, you are violent even if you've never landed a blow or fired a bullet. The key behavior here is fighting for your cause against whomever you perceive as enemies of that cause, regardless of whether your cause is a good one and regardless of whether your fight is winnable. Fanaticism is perforce outward-directed . . . it's about establishing "us" and "them," and doing your best to push the line between outward into the world (by winning mindshare, concessions, the election, or the war, as the case may be), or at least to keep those you perceive as foes of the cause from crossing that line.

If you have Sense of Duty, you take the side of a person or a group of people – who can still constitute a nation, organization, or members of a philosophical or religious group, but who are not some impersonal "cause" (in the case of nature, these "people" are all the plants and animals). You do so by caring; as the disadvantage states quite clearly, you'll never leave them in trouble or even let them starve. In effect, you have Charitable and Selfless toward those people only. The key behavior here is helping and protecting whomever you feel you owe a duty to, regardless of whether they merit or even want that assistance. Sense of Duty is perforce inward-directed . . . it it's about how you behave toward those inside a group, and doesn't waste a lot (or possibly any) time worrying about who "us" and "them" are. It's honest care from the heart, extended willingly to anyone who has a reasonable claim to being a member of your chosen group.

A soldier with Fanaticism wants to fight and kill for their nation, to carve out its place in the world, bring it glory, perhaps expand its empire, and certainly punish and destroy its enemies; if the lives of a bunch of other soldiers have to be "spent" to "buy" an objective, so be it. A soldier with Sense of Duty wants to protect fellow soldiers or possibly all citizens of their nation; if the greater, impersonal military cause suffers because they're too busy pulling their mates to cover or moving citizens out of the warzone, so be it. A soldier with both will try to reconcile these things . . . they'll protect their mates by charging the enemy with a machine gun while the wounded are evacuated, take on stupidly bad odds because "One of our citizens is in there!", and in general protect via a "the best defense is a good offense" approach to life.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Anders

The description of Fanaticism says "You might even be willing to die for it!" (emphasis mine), so I feel that your interpretation is a little extreme.

I would say "kill or die, choose one," however – though the "death" in question might be fiscal, reputational, or whatever rather than a strict matter of corpses. The key point being that if you get your way, permanent, irreversible loss will result, for you and/or those opposed to your cause. Someone will end up dead, imprisoned for life, displaced from their homeland, a social pariah, or otherwise paying an ultimate price. If that's you, you made a sacrifice for the cause; if it's an opponent, you beat them for the cause. Fanaticism can be silent, determined, and intellectual, but one thing it never is is rational.

Fanaticism is worth -15 points because it isn't remotely rational or justifiable. It makes you a crazy person who will accept no truce or compromise in your "war." If this conflict exists in the real world, your lack of mental stability will be exploited by those fighting it, and once the conflict ends, you'll have nothing to live for and end up being a tragic Rambo figure. If the conflict exists only in your head, your lack of mental stability will eventually reach a crisis point where you're likely to kill or be killed for realz. I'd say it's one of those innately "dark" disadvantages, in the same boat as Megalomania and Sadism.

[Micah Davis]

Originally Posted by Anders

What would be the difference between Fanaticism (U.S.A) and Sense of Duty (U.S.A.)? What would a character like Captain America in the movie CA: The Winter Soldier have?

No discussion of real-world politics, obviously.

Fanaticism (Liberty) is what I'd put on Cap's sheet. "I don't like bullies and I don't care who they are." in the margins to explain what he means. He also has Selfless, Sense of Duty (Bucky), and Code of Honor (Soldier's). His love for America specifically is represented through positive skills (History, Area Knowledge) and quirk level Patriotic (though the Code of Honor may cover that).

This may be a bit at odds with Kromm's interpretation above, but even then I'm not sure - Cap is clearly at a loss when he's not fighting and his career ends when he buys off the disadvantage to settle down.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Micah Davis

This may be a bit at odds with Kromm's interpretation above, but even then I'm not sure - Cap is clearly at a loss when he's not fighting and his career ends when he buys off the disadvantage to settle down.

I think he's a great example of Fanaticism! He's someone who devoted his whole life to fighting for a cause, and against enemies of that cause – at first in a literal war. That he was a nice guy to those on his side just meant that he also had things like Code of Honor, Selfless, and Sense of Duty. And that he wasn't a blunt instrument just meant that he had the IQ and skills to recognize valid targets and act precisely, and quite possibly Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents), like many Marvel heroes. None of those traits is mutually exclusive with any other.

As you wrote, he was at a loss once "all warrior, all the time" wasn't an acceptable way to lead his life; his psychological struggles are a huge part of his character. What kept him from becoming Rambo was that Marvel tends to err on the cheerful side even when things are dark. Yet the curious should look up David Morrell, who wrote First Blood and worked on a Captain America comic . . . the two are sufficiently alike that the owners of the latter property felt the author of the former would be a good fit to their super-soldier's heroic mythos.

[Not]

Rambo as seen in the first film spares a helpless foe (a cop), so Fanaticism is separate from Bloodlust.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I think he's a great example of Fanaticism!

No, just no. Captain America does not have any sort of "My County Right or Wrong!" Disad.

When his country (usually in the form of its' government) is wrong he stands for what's right. Besides many, many instances in the comics the whole Civil War movie illustrates this.