Bloodlust vs Charitable - The Battle of Wills

[GodBeastX]

So bloodlust wants an enemy dead, and charitable helps and enemy in need.

How do these two disadvantages interact well in a character? I got ideas, but I wanted some input from the hive to see if I might have more ideas.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

So bloodlust wants an enemy dead, and charitable helps and enemy in need.

How do these two disadvantages interact well in a character? I got ideas, but I wanted some input from the hive to see if I might have more ideas.

The two traits are almost contradictory.

Personally, I'd average the self-control numbers and roll once to see which trait wins out. Success over the margin of success to resist one disad but not the other means that just one trait takes effect. Success by MoS to resist both means neither apply. Failure means that both apply somehow (e.g., taking a gratuitous shot which permanently cripples an enemy, but lets them live).

Alternately, just rule that the more severe disadvantage dominates.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Personally, I'd require someone who wanted to take both disadvantages to put a limitation on Charitable - something like Accessibility: Doesn't apply to enemies in lethal combat, -65%. So, the character would have to do their best to help everyone in need, even enemies, and would even help those who attacked them in a non-lethal fight. But when lethal attacks finally start flying around, they'd be allowed to kill, and in fact would have to actively make a self-control roll to avoid doing so.

[khorboth]

I'd dig deeper into the character's psyche. Overall, I'd think Bloodlust operates on a more instinctual level so it gets the first roll and then Charitable gets the second.

But, if Charitable reflects some basic nature and Bloodlust reflects some training I might flip them. Or do some kind of average. Either way, I'd want a good explanation on WHY somebody would take both. I'd probably base my final decision on that explanation.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Personally, I'd require someone who wanted to take both disadvantages to put a limitation on Charitable - something like Accessibility: Doesn't apply to enemies in lethal combat, -65%. So, the character would have to do their best to help everyone in need, even enemies, and would even help those who attacked them in a non-lethal fight. But when lethal attacks finally start flying around, they'd be allowed to kill, and in fact would have to actively make a self-control roll to avoid doing so.

Something like this seems like the best solution. Otherwise you could get essentially free points by taking disadvantages with mutually exclusive effects.

[Varyon]

Does charitable actually mean you have to stop in the middle of a fight to apply first aid to the guy you just dropped, Vash the Stampede-style*? Once the battle is over, sure, but I don't think it would typically apply during the battle (an exception would be made if the enemy specifically asks you for help, of course).

In a case where both Bloodlust and Charitable could apply, and the player wants neither to come into play, I'd have him roll for both. If he fails one but not the other, the one he failed the self-control roll for comes into play. If he fails both, I'd use whichever had the higher Margin of Failure. If that's a tie, I'd have him do a tie-breaker roll (as many of them as it takes). In the case of failing at both, the action should have a taint of the other trait to it - when Bloodlust wins out, he'll kill the foe in as humane a method as possible, while when Charitable wins out, he'll render aid but not be very pleasant about it.

In a case where the player wants one to come into play (thus without the conflict would waive his right to a self-control roll), I'd have him roll for the other. If he succeeds, he'll take the action he originally intended. If he fails, he'll have to roll for the trait he wanted to succumb to, and will need to fail that roll worse than the initial one (I might apply a -2 or so to account for player choice) to take his intended action.

*Note Vash doing it wasn't so much because of his Charitable - which he most likely had anyway - but rather because of his Pacifism (No Killing).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

So bloodlust wants an enemy dead, and charitable helps and enemy in need.

How do these two disadvantages interact well in a character? I got ideas, but I wanted some input from the hive to see if I might have more ideas.

The one time it came up on a Character sheet in my games I made the Player take both at 9 or less, then if it came up on a roll of 9 or less he'd Bloodlust, 10 or higher Charitable.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Does charitable actually mean you have to stop in the middle of a fight to apply first aid to the guy you just dropped, Vash the Stampede-style*?

Quite possibly, yes. I'd at least call for a self-control roll to avoid it, if the character's actual friends weren't also in immediate danger and need help themselves. Charitable is worth -15 by default, which suggests to me it's supposed to significantly affect you. It's more disadvantageous than Berserk, after all!

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

So bloodlust wants an enemy dead, and charitable helps and enemy in need.

How do these two disadvantages interact well in a character? I got ideas, but I wanted some input from the hive to see if I might have more ideas.

The box "I'm Torn!" in Dungeon Fantasy RPG (p. 65) covers this pretty well.