How to portray shunning?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Usually shunning is done by the powerful against those without power.
If thats thecase I would make being shunned a Social Stigma.

Ostracism certainly was not. It was specifically designed to emasculate power. In fact I don't think it would qualify as shunning at all. I can't recall any social consequences for associating with an ostracized person, albeit politically that would put him in danger of suspicion of conspiracy.

As for shunning being done by the powerful against those without power in general, I am not sure that holds water. There is the old trope about certain occupations being pariahs to those to profit by them (executioners, prostitutes, garbage collectors to name a few). Counter to that is the fact that in many cases no one cares what the great unwashed do-that is why they are the great unwashed. Whereas there are many things that can get a powerful person "coventrated". Running away in battle, or cheating at cards for instance.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

If the shunning is some weird tradition like Menstrual Huts or a voluntary segregation like soldiers returning home from war deciding to live in isolated communities. it's hard to say how that would work. It could be represented as intolerance or social regard or any number of social Advantages or Disadvantages. It would depend a lot on the specifics of that tradition and how people would act if it was broken.

That is not shunning. Those two are temporary and something any member of the tribe might have to undergo. They also are not considered shameful.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Usually shunning is done by the powerful against those without power. If that's the case I would make being shunned a Social Stigma.

Obviously Social Stigma is the way to handle people who are actively shunned by others. That wasn't my question.

I'm asking for ideas about what sort of disads REQUIRE INDIVIDUALS OR MEMBERS OF A GROUP TO AVOID ASSOCIATION WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF PEOPLE. There doesn't seem to be a neat way to handle it in RAW.

For limited types of restricted contact, it's obviously a 0-point Feature, possibly built into whatever customs or laws a character follows.

For more limiting behaviors, it appears to be GM's choice of CoH, DoF, Duty, Intolerance, SoD, or Vow, or perhaps a bit of two or more disads.

Examples:

* Old-school AD&D 1E Paladins who can't willingly associate with Evil creatures.

- Part of CoH, Disciplines of Faith, or a Vow? Possibly as part of the Pact limitation to certain holy powers.

* Intelligence Analyst whose security clearance requires him to avoid all but the most superficial contact with foreign nationals or makes him believe that he must avoid such contacts.

- Duty and/or Sense of Duty

* An order of monks whose members must not speak to outsiders without permission and who will not allow outsiders into their monastery, even when it is to their advantage to do so.

- CoH, DoF (Asceticism), Duty, or Vow?

* Members of a religion which requires its members to avoid contact with certain types of "unbelievers" or "sinful" people.

- Possibly CoH or part of DoF (Ritualism), but quite possibly full-blown Intolerance masquerading as one of the first two traits. Or, maybe a limited form of Intolerance if they can truly "love the sinner while hating the sin" and don't react negatively to those they must avoid.

* Secular and enlightened "militant pacifists" who refuse to have any dealings with those who engage in violence, even when it's to their advantage to cultivate them. They won't visit territories occupied by people who aren't also pacifists and refuse to let non-pacifists into their territory - using non-violent techniques to discourage or remove intruders. They don't hate those who use violence, they just have zero tolerance for contact with them. (Think of the Organians from ST:TOS).

- Intolerance variant, Extended version of Pacifism, CoH, Vow?

A Celtic warrior who believes that he is under a gaesa to never speak to green-eyed women, nor touch them, nor wear any cloth they have woven, nor eat food they have prepared, nor to set foot on any lands under their domain.

- An extremely limiting Vow, or maybe a Delusion. If imposed by a malicious supernatural force it could even be part of a Destiny or a Divine Curse (i.e., on a man whose mother, wife, sisters, and daughters are all green-eyed). In a fantasy campaign, possibly a really vicious Pact limitation.

[jason taylor]

How about Reputation (Wolves Head)?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A Celtic warrior who believes that he is under a gaesa to never speak to green-eyed women, nor touch them, nor wear any cloth they have woven, nor eat food they have prepared, nor to set foot on any lands under their domain.

- An extremely limiting Vow, or maybe a Delusion. If imposed by a malicious supernatural force it could even be part of a Destiny or a Divine Curse (i.e., on a man whose mother, wife, sisters, and daughters are all green-eyed). In a fantasy campaign, possibly a really vicious Pact limitation.

First, a geas against green eyed women is liable to be a real handicap in a Celtic society (...oops ;-)) and second, with the food and land taboo he is quite likely to break his geas by accident and/or get Cuchulained.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

How about Reputation (Wolves Head)?

Isn't that just Enemy (practically everyone)?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Isn't that just Enemy (practically everyone)?

Even better.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

First, a geas against green eyed women is liable to be a real handicap in a Celtic society (...oops ;-)) and second, with the food and land taboo he is quite likely to break his geas by accident and/or get Cuchulained.

Yep. I'd say it's worth at least -15 points for exactly the reasons you described. It's actually a weak example because it incorporates elements other than just shunning a particular group.

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Isn't that just Enemy (practically everyone)?

No. Say that the geased warrior is cursed so that bad stuff happens if he breaks his geas. He can still get aid from green-eyed women as long as it doesn't break the geas (e.g., he can still receive certain sorts of gifts from them and he can freely use goods made by such people as long as they're not food or clothing). More importantly, green-eyed women don't go out of their way to mess with his life personally.

OTOH, a curse like I've described plus an Enemy who knows the nature of the geas is a potentially crippling combination.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

How about Reputation (Wolves Head)?

That would work independently from a requirement to shun or being a member of a shunned group.

For example, a race of enlightened, pacifistic, god-like energy beings might have some very good reasons for not meddling in the affairs of lesser beings and for not allowing such people into their domains. Regardless of the nobility of their motives, they could easily acquire a bad Reputation for their isolationist tendencies.

In cases like that, it almost seems like a limited form of Intolerance. Members of the shunning group don't actually hate the people they must shun, but members of the shunned groups are resentful because they're being shunned.