How to handle 2 Different Senses of Duty of different sizes

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I can sort of see that, but I might incline to treat one as an alternative disability for one-fifth points.

I haven't ever really worked out the math on this, it's only ever come up once in a game. I think I was basically just thinking of it as an enhancement to the Sense of Duty. If I was going to put hard numbers on it, I think I'd do it as follows:

Troublesome: The group of people you feel a Sense of Duty towards is more inconvenient than usual. A typical group is either present most of the time, meaning that you have to attend to their needs more often but it won't disrupt your life as significantly; or they aren't as present (perhaps they live in different areas or simply don't stay in touch), but when they do call on you for help, you must travel to their location or otherwise spend more resources and time assisting them. If your group includes people who fit both these criteria, or if they are otherwise getting into trouble more often or require more resources to assist, you may claim this enhancement on Sense of Duty. +40%.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

I'd also be reluctant to allow two Senses of Duty that overlap. This case meets my test requirements as the relationships are distinct. Your party are people who have earned your respect and they have been dutiful when you need them. On the other hand they have a religious devotional obligation to serve those of your faith. Despite being the same Disadvantage, it is triggered by different circumstances and forces different extents of behavior.

For what it's worth, there is a precedent for this interpretation in the DFRPG. Five of the thirteen sample characters in Delvers to Go! have more than one SoD. All characters have SoD (Adventuring Companions). Aelin and Llandor add Nature, though for Llandor it is part of his racial template. Samar has Good Entities, Sir Yvor has Nation, and Miriam has Coreligionists.

From my perspective, a sense of duty to your Adventuring Companions doesn't really overlap with the others. It basically means you'll share stuff, obey majority decisions, and not betray the group. It's a commitment to party harmony. As a player, when I take this one, I know that I should find ways to connect with the other PCs right off the bat, even if the group doesn't start as a team. This seems unlikely to become a GM tool to add complications or provide adventure hooks.

The larger SoDs, however, are more likely to come up with NPCs. A sense of duty to coreligionists gives the GM the ability to hit the PC with quests from his temple that he can't easily turn down. Similarly, the GM can use the religious angle to add complications to other quests. Maybe, on a time-sensitive quest, the PCs encounter some of the faithful who are suffering. Without that SoD, the PC could say, "Sorry, our quest is too important," and move on. But with the SoD, he will need to delay and figure something out for them.

This feels sufficiently different that I don't have a problem with both on the same character.

[khorboth]

I would USUALLY not allow multiple SoD without a real reason.

The real exception, though is SoD to the adventuring party. Because of what it does for group cohesion, I am generally more lenient and willing to give points. In this case, I would give full points for both and only make the conflict if I was feeling particularly cantankerous.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Dalin

For what it's worth, there is a precedent for this interpretation in the DFRPG. Five of the thirteen sample characters in Delvers to Go! have more than one SoD. All characters have SoD (Adventuring Companions). Aelin and Llandor add Nature, though for Llandor it is part of his racial template. Samar has Good Entities, Sir Yvor has Nation, and Miriam has Coreligionists.

From my perspective, a sense of duty to your Adventuring Companions doesn't really overlap with the others. It basically means you'll share stuff, obey majority decisions, and not betray the group. It's a commitment to party harmony. As a player, when I take this one, I know that I should find ways to connect with the other PCs right off the bat, even if the group doesn't start as a team. This seems unlikely to become a GM tool to add complications or provide adventure hooks.

The larger SoDs, however, are more likely to come up with NPCs. A sense of duty to coreligionists gives the GM the ability to hit the PC with quests from his temple that he can't easily turn down. Similarly, the GM can use the religious angle to add complications to other quests. Maybe, on a time-sensitive quest, the PCs encounter some of the faithful who are suffering. Without that SoD, the PC could say, "Sorry, our quest is too important," and move on. But with the SoD, he will need to delay and figure something out for them.

This feels sufficiently different that I don't have a problem with both on the same character.

This is what I do. But I also use the rules for Overlapping Disadvantages on p. 65 of the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Kromm also suggests a rule to deal with this here.

[phayman53]

Thank you all for your input. I think in regards to this I have been convinced that the only main Sense of Duty that shouldn't be subsumed into a larger one is "Adventuring Companions", especially since there are RAW DFRPG characters that have both it and a larger one. Even though DFRPG isn't completely the same as GURPS, the logic behind having "Adventuring Companions" as a separate Sense of Duty from other ones due to the dynamics of an RPG party makes sense to me.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Thank you all for your input. I think in regards to this I have been convinced that the only main Sense of Duty that shouldn't be subsumed into a larger one is "Adventuring Companions", especially since there are RAW DFRPG characters that have both it and a larger one. Even though DFRPG isn't completely the same as GURPS, the logic behind having "Adventuring Companions" as a separate Sense of Duty from other ones due to the dynamics of an RPG party makes sense to me.

I still like the idea of having the choice be reflected in reputation points as soon as conflict arises.