New and Custom Quirks?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

I'd probably place it as a Quirk, as it seems mechanically almost the same as Sexless.

Even though it gives a reduction in appearance modifiers?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Even though it gives a reduction in appearance modifiers?

Why is it giving appearance mods? Do you mean reaction modifiers?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Why is it giving appearance mods? Do you mean reaction modifiers?

The base modifiers for positive appearance give a smaller bonus for those the character isn't attracted to. like +4/+6
I would assume no sex drive would make it +4/+4 which seems like a benefit.
Is that clearer?

[panton41]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Would "no sex drive" count as a quirk or perk?

It might give a negative reaction modifier to some groups, but it also should give a bonus or downright immunity to seduction attempts and even-out appearance modifiers.

Assuming the character's actual sexual ability is unchanged, just no drive, I'd probably call it 0-points. The penalties they might get from some groups (party animals, strippers, er, underworld contacts, Desperate Housewives, etc.) would be balanced by another (ministers, pious people, Ms. Censordoll).

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

The base modifiers for positive appearance give a smaller bonus for those the character isn't attracted to. like +4/+6
I would assume no sex drive would make it +4/+4 which seems like a benefit.
Is that clearer?

Ah... when you said appearance mods, I thought you meant that it was changing the character's appearance, but you are talking about how the owner reacts to other's appearance. IDHMBWM... does Sexless do anything like that?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

does Sexless do anything like that?

Not expressly, but it does implicitly with the appealing/unappealing split for appearance.

[Not another shrubbery]

It sounds like a positive cost trait then, but a fairly minor one... maybe a little more than a Quirk, but not a lot.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

It sounds like a positive cost trait then, but a fairly minor one... maybe a little more than a Quirk, but not a lot.

What about the negative reactions? Isn't this already basically the Oblivious disadvantage anyway?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ehrbar

No, I don't. The statement "I believe there are no gods" implies no more metaphysical certainty than "I believe Moscow exists". My conclusion might of course be wrong, as any other conclusion I ever reach on the evidence available to me might be wrong. But I don't waste any time contemplating the possibility my conclusion is in error until I'm given an actual reason to so consider.

Actually it does. It is not the same as 'I do not have reason to believe god(s) exist'.

Even more importantly, it is not the same as 'I believe there are no Gods' (my position). What it means is that I do not necessarily dispute the existence of higher powers. In fact, I even consider it a possibility that the accounts of people behind the writing of Avesta, Kojiki, Koran, Tripitaka, the Testaments etc. contains no purposeful deceptions by those people who wrote them.

What this means is that I do not have a verified opinion on the existence of Ahura Mazda, Amaterasu, Allah/YHWH, but (and this is most relevant for monotheistic and bitheistic religions) I do not see any possible justification for assuming that:

• Any one of them has even one trait from: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
• Any one of them is telling people the truth.

Does that make me qualify for atheist, Atheist, probablymaltheist, Probablymaltheist, probablyMaltheist or what?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Not expressly, but it does implicitly with the appealing/unappealing split for appearance.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What about the negative reactions? Isn't this already basically the Oblivious disadvantage anyway?

BWMB :) Reading the pertinent sections in Appearance Levels and the text of the Neutered or Sexless Quirk, Flyn's proposal does sound quite a bit like like that latter. The Reaction adjustment for levels of Appearance > Attractive is not explicit, but does seem to be reasonable, although that makes it hard to justify the trait as a Quirk IMO. You would have to play up the negative aspects enough to counterbalance this positive aspect, making it seem more like a meta-trait package of reaction mods. Maybe his idea was something that did not include those drawbacks, that would look like a lesser form of Unfazeable.