Fanaticism and Sense of Duty

[whswhs]

It seems to me that, for example, a Roman Catholic with Fanaticism might censor dissenting religious views within the church, forcibly interrogate people suspected of holding them, and even put heretics to death. But a Roman Catholic with Sense of Duty (Catholics) would want to preserve the lives of everyone within the church, though they might preach what they thought was the correct doctrine to the people whose lives they saved.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

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.

And that isn't Fanaticism (Liberty) or something similar?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

And that isn't Fanaticism (Liberty) or something similar?

It totally is. Nothing says Fanaticism can't be to some incredibly fine-tuned, nuanced view of what's "right." It needn't be to some broad-strokes nation-state or -ism. Indeed, the mentally unstable are wonderfully good at developing worldviews that are unassailable by virtue of a kind of fluidity that lets them adapt in the face of evidence.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Not

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

For sure. Just upthread I offered an example of Fanaticism + Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents). Fanaticism needn't come with Bloodlust; it just has to come with the will to do something extreme, some of the time. Murdering isn't the only option . . . as I said earlier, I think that emotional, intellectual, and social violence are significantly more common than the physical kind (which is all Bloodlust cares about).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

And that isn't Fanaticism (Liberty) or something similar?

Basic says that the Disadvantaged one is fanatic about a "country, organisation, philosophy or religion and puts it ahead of _everything_ else". If I were the GM I would first judge that "Liberty" is broader (and more nebulous) than any of those things and second that Captain America doesn't put it ahead of _everything_ else.

I'm seeing an open ended conflict between Americans and non-Americans about whether or not any American can be a patriot without sufferring from a mental illness and no resolition in sight. Perhaps the mods will consider locking this thread.

[TGLS]

I don't know; one of the examples from the book is a patriot saying "Give me liberty or give me death!".

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I don't know; one of the examples from the book is a patriot saying "Give me liberty or give me death!".

Yes.

Fanaticism (Liberty) is a great example of Fanaticism to a philosophy rather than to a nation, organization, person, or religion; "liberty" doesn't have to be formally defined by a philosopher to count. Some people might regard "liberty" as synonymous with the cause of one side in a war – whether because that side is actually fighting for something that most humans would agree is liberty or just because that's their propaganda. That doesn't make Fanaticism (Liberty) equivalent to Fanaticism (The side of the war fighting for liberty)! If that side does anything that doesn't look like liberty to the fanatic, the fanatic will oppose it; if that side has other values that have nothing to do with liberty or its absence, the fanatic will just sit on the sidelines while those values are debated or fought over. Of course, it's quite possible for a nation or faith or great leader to consistently remain devoted to liberty above all else for the life of the fanatic, meaning that no one might ever know that the fanatic is loyal to liberty, not to the nation, faith, or leader.

I think this makes for a very fun character to play. Fanaticism (Nation) is kind of overdone and largely lacking in shading; there will be somebody in charge of a nation, and they get to give orders. Fanaticism (Liberty) means someone who was for ages the hero of a nation might dislike a sudden turn toward autocracy or oppression on the part of that nation's leadership, and suddenly find themselves a rebel or outcast. That's a far more interesting character arc.

Of course, however heroic the fanatic – thanks to other disadvantages, despite other disadvantages, or aside from other disadvantages – they're still a fanatic. Their cause might be good (I like liberty!), but their devotion is irrational and unreasoning. Choosing a good cause despite its flaws is one thing; being convinced a cause is good without seeing its flaws is another. Playing someone with Fanaticism does mean playing somebody who would be, in casual parlance, "crazy." But then so does playing somebody with a great many other disadvantages . . . that's kind of why they're disadvantages.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Fanaticism (Liberty) means the hero who was for ages the hero of a nation might dislike a sudden turn toward autocracy or oppression on the part of that nation's leadership, and suddenly find themselves a rebel or outcast.

Eh...I'm not sure that'd be a viable story. (Oh, wait...$2.2 Billion later...)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Fanaticism (Liberty) is a great example of Fanaticism to a philosophy rather than to a nation, organization, person, or religion; "liberty" doesn't have to be formally defined by a philosopher to count. Some people might regard "liberty" as synonymous with the cause of one side in a war – whether because that side is actually fighting for something that most humans would agree is liberty or just because that's their propaganda. That doesn't make Fanaticism (Liberty) equivalent to Fanaticism (The side of the war fighting for liberty)! If that side does anything that doesn't look like liberty to the fanatic, the fanatic will oppose it; if that side has other values that have nothing to do with liberty or its absence, the fanatic will just sit on the sidelines while those values are debated or fought over. Of course, it's quite possible for a nation or faith or great leader to consistently remain devoted to liberty above all else for the life of the fanatic, meaning that no one might ever know that the fanatic is loyal to liberty, not to the nation, faith, or leader.

Or, for a parallel example (probably "liberty" isn't the right word for what's at issue, though), there was the conflict between Stalin's policy of socialism in one country, and Trotsky's policy of world socialist revolution. A case can be made that they were both fanatics, but they put different things first.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Or, for a parallel example (probably "liberty" isn't the right word for what's at issue, though), there was the conflict between Stalin's policy of socialism in one country, and Trotsky's policy of world socialist revolution. A case can be made that they were both fanatics, but they put different things first.

Indeed. There are lots of examples in the real world, though I was trying to avoid specific ones to avoid possible violations of forums policy. It suffices to say that Fanaticism (Nation) and Fanaticism (What that nation purports to stand for) are equally valid, but also commonly confused. To stay safely fictional, I'd call both Tarkin and Vader fanatics, but the former was fanatical about the Empire while the latter was a fanatical personal devotee to the Sith as embodied in Palpatine, who happened to rule the Empire. I think Tarkin would happily hang Palpatine, Vader, and all the Sith out to dry in return for a bigger Empire and more starships, while Vader was rather obviously willing to let the Empire and its fleets perish in order to pursue some mad personal quest.