On being Feared

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Sure. But what I'm looking at is whether she would have reason to want to stop being Feared, or to manage the fear more effectively in some way. That's going to determine whether the character is motivated to undertake that sort of change, I think. And I don't want to explain it to the player; I want her to be presented with whatever sort of reactions are natural, and see how she takes them. So the question is what the natural reactions are. . . .

Honestly there aren't much in the way of disadvantages from being Feared until it's also associated with other social traits that are less advantageous like "Hunted by inquisitors" or "Watched by the FBI" where losing the Social Regard is the price you pay for evading your enemies. The exception would be a roleplaying thing where a lonely Feared just wants to make a friend or lover without the distance that Regard creates.

[arnej]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Does all this make any sense? Am I on the right track in saying that Feared can't just be "turned off" when it's not wanted?

I'd agree that Social Regard can't be "turned off."

I'm picturing hirelings kinda like Renfield. Tied to the master, eager to please him, unfortunately loyal.

Or Anne Hathaway in Devil Wore Prada. There are lots of benefits to working for someone like her boss, ones that could outweigh the persistent fear. As long as those hold true, they put up with it.

Or that old saw from Machiavelli. "From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved." If the Prince thinks it can work...

I see lots of room for hirelings that can work under the mantle of the necromancer's Social Regard.

[whswhs]

Well, let's look at the effect of assuming that a Feared character's hirelings are analogous to slaves, draftees, or spouses in forced marriages. Note that this particular PC has Feared 3, which gives +3 to reaction rolls.

Roll 2d:

2-7: No modifier; net effect +3 Loyalty (they really don't want to get in trouble)
8: Resents being driven by fear; -1; net effect +2 Loyalty
9: The same, but -2; net effect +1 Loyalty
10: The job is an improvement over previous hardship or cruelty: if treated kindly, +3, net effect +5 Loyalty; if not treated kindly, no effect, net effect +3 Loyalty
11: Resents being coerced; will quit as soon as possible; if treated badly, Loyalty drops to 6
12: Has a disadvantage that results in nearly total loyalty (Slave Mentality, Cowardice, Sense of Duty, or various other things); Loyalty is automatically 20

On one hand, that isn't much of a source of problems for Nergul; in fact, the average Loyalty score is going to be about 13, an effective +2.5. On the other hand, it's a trivial enough effect so that it's probably not worth rolling for even if it's justified by the fear (which admittedly is at best debatable).

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by whswhs

acrosome mentions have the character "dress down" as a way of foregoing the advantage. But being able to hide your belonging to a certain category of person isn't always that simple. Consider, for example, the classic bodyguard who puts on a nice suit and looks like a bodyguard wearing a nice suit that hides neither his muscles nor his shoulder holster. It might be possible for Nergul to hide her being a necromancer, but that could take, say, a Disguise roll—and again we have "you have to roleplay it and make some skill rolls." Or maybe Nergul can do the equivalent of the king showing up in a military uniform and being addressed as "general so-and-so" to short circuit some of the protocol; that might be a way to use Savoir-Faire.

But the bodyguard doesn't have Social Regard. We're talking about a CEO, or a bishop, or some such. Dressing like a teamster would work just fine for such folks. Just take him out of his finery and put him in painter's coveralls and how would you recognize the pope, if you don't know his face?

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by whswhs

On one hand, that isn't much of a source of problems for Nergul; in fact, the average Loyalty score is going to be about 13, an effective +2.5. On the other hand, it's a trivial enough effect so that it's probably not worth rolling for even if it's justified by the fear (which admittedly is at best debatable).

I don't suggest rolling for the sake of significant effects on the loyalty score. I suggest it just because it can help give life to an NPC.

For instance, if you roll a 12, you can get the Igor/Renfield stereotype (even though Renfield didn't fit the stereotype in the books). On an 8 or 9, you get a sullen follower, who serves unhappily, so while his loyalty score doesn't change much it means you can play that hireling as not enjoying his job. On a 10, you get someone initially nervous but quickly pleasantly surprised by any nice behaviour from Nergul.

Essentially, if you've not already decided on the hireling's personality, this can be a good starting point.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Railstar

I don't suggest rolling for the sake of significant effects on the loyalty score. I suggest it just because it can help give life to an NPC.

For instance, if you roll a 12, you can get the Igor/Renfield stereotype (even though Renfield didn't fit the stereotype in the books). On an 8 or 9, you get a sullen follower, who serves unhappily, so while his loyalty score doesn't change much it means you can play that hireling as not enjoying his job. On a 10, you get someone initially nervous but quickly pleasantly surprised by any nice behaviour from Nergul.

Essentially, if you've not already decided on the hireling's personality, this can be a good starting point.

Well, there is some point to that. It might make sense to treat it as optional (it wouldn't be for slaves) but as an available guideline to NPC attitudes.

Bill

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by acrosome

But the bodyguard doesn't have Social Regard. We're talking about a CEO, or a bishop, or some such. Dressing like a teamster would work just fine for such folks. Just take him out of his finery and put him in painter's coveralls and how would you recognize the pope, if you don't know his face?

It seems to me that that involves someone making a Disguise roll, though it need not be the Pope.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, let's look at the effect of assuming that a Feared character's hirelings are analogous to slaves, draftees, or spouses in forced marriages.

If he hired them and pays them, why would they be?

Slaves, draftees and spouses in forced marriages have suffered a violation of their personal rights, which effectively deprives them of personal liberty, and the character to whom they owe the Loyalty score they roll for either was complicit in that violation or benefits from it.

It makes no sense to punish a character for buying a 15 point Advantage by having hirelings regard him as having committed a serious offence against them even if he has never treated them as anything but valued employees.

Just because a character belongs to a power elite in the world that can do terrible things to those who offend them doesn't mean that a character who didn't take any Disadvantages having to do with negative Reputation (or reputation, in the form of other Disadvantages) should suffer what effectively anounts to lesser Loyalty from his hirelings.

Belonging to the to the retinue of a feared inquisitor or necromancer is probably regarded as a positive thing by many servants, men-at-arms, familiars, torturers or embalmers. Maybe not Ubho Tal the Utterly Terrible (Reputation -4 as a horrible defiler of both the living and dead to go with his Social Regard (Feared) 3), but certainly any necromancer who has only positive Reaction modifiers and doesn't mistreat his staff.

Social Regard (Feared) costs the same per level as Charisma. Making it different in some ways is fine, but making it overall worse is bad game design.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If he hired them and pays them, why would they be?

Social Regard (Feared) costs the same per level as Charisma. Making it different in some ways is fine, but making it overall worse is bad game design.

Did you read my actual analysis? It shows that the employer is hardly ever worse off when you combine the Social Regard bonus and the involuntary employment penalty. Even if you assume just one level of SR, the expected reaction is 11.2 vs. 10.5, which is still a fairly significant gain.

As to why it would have any disadvantageous effects at all, it's specified that people's reaction rolls are based on their being afraid of you, and function as if you had used Intimidation against them. That is, they might be accepting the job and the pay not because they really wanted it, but because they were afraid to say No. Consider, for example, trying to make a Sex Appeal roll against someone who was frightened of you; the fear might interfere with the arousal that you were hoping for. This wouldn't necessarily prevent immediate cooperation, but the long-term effects might be different from what you wanted.

I'm not committed to a specific game mechanic. But it seems to me that if you genuinely got what you wanted, not because the other person wanted to give it to you, but because they were afraid of you (that is, if the +3 made a difference), there ought to be some difference in the ensuing narrative.

This isn't the same as the Inappropriate Manner quirk in Power-Ups 6, but there seems to be some similarity. In effect, you are always using Intimidation, whether it fits the situation or not. And IM gives a penalty to Influence skills of up to -10!

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Did you read my actual analysis? It shows that the employer is hardly ever worse off when you combine the Social Regard bonus and the involuntary employment penalty. Even if you assume just one level of SR, the expected reaction is 11.2 vs. 10.5, which is still a fairly significant gain.

As to why it would have any disadvantageous effects at all, it's specified that people's reaction rolls are based on their being afraid of you, and function as if you had used Intimidation against them. That is, they might be accepting the job and the pay not because they really wanted it, but because they were afraid to say No. Consider, for example, trying to make a Sex Appeal roll against someone who was frightened of you; the fear might interfere with the arousal that you were hoping for. This wouldn't necessarily prevent immediate cooperation, but the long-term effects might be different from what you wanted.

I'm not committed to a specific game mechanic. But it seems to me that if you genuinely got what you wanted, not because the other person wanted to give it to you, but because they were afraid of you (that is, if the +3 made a difference), there ought to be some difference in the ensuing narrative.

This isn't the same as the Inappropriate Manner quirk in Power-Ups 6, but there seems to be some similarity. In effect, you are always using Intimidation, whether it fits the situation or not. And IM gives a penalty to Influence skills of up to -10!

If the difference was a significant one rather than just flavour, then Feared should probably be worth less than Respected.