OneMortalHero

Delwyn: Oh yes, and I realised something else that bugs me about the Heroic Mortal Love during a stray thought. I did talk before about how they steal concepts, with people thinking Arthur's Knights(hello, FA Solars!) and Odysseus(Hello, Eclipse/Journeys!) are HMs just because they don't use brute force, ne?
fourwillows: o.o
Delwyn: The other thing is... people tend to protect HMs so much because they say that in the world, there HAVE to be more HMs than Celestial Shards. When I gave up making 'elite squads' because they are WRONG, I was told, 'no, in the Bishop's ranks of millions of followers there would be so many heroic guys.'
Delwyn: And that is the other wrong
Delwyn: It turns heroism into statistic
fourwillows: hmm
fourwillows: what if there were only 1 HM in the world
fourwillows: and that was like a big deal
charlequin: haha
charlequin: yeah uh
charlequin: I guess my only response to this line of discussion is "see SI"
Delwyn: See SI? How so? The 'Exalt all humans' part? ^_^
charlequin: oh
charlequin: well like
charlequin: the entire problem you guys are dealing with right now is predicated on the question of what happens when there aren't enough celestial essences to go around
charlequin: and clearly my answer, at least, is "those people find a different way to get exalted"
charlequin: "or otherwise become magically powerful"
fourwillows: mhm
Delwyn nods!
Delwyn: True, that!
charlequin: I mean, it's also kind of damning to the celestial concept
charlequin: in that it's saying, like
charlequin: "this is clearly not a model that works if you poke at the corners"
charlequin: but I think it's more damning to the heroic mortal concept in general
Delwyn: And with Raksha and Gods around giving Mutations/Endowments, it is not impossible even if you have no imagination in canon >.>
charlequin: mhm
charlequin: that's why the game idea about heroic mortals stealing exaltations was the only heroic mortal campaign I ever thought was worthwhile
fourwillows: so here is my idea
fourwillows: One Mortal Hero
fourwillows: is about this guy who's the only real mortal
fourwillows: in a world overrun with god-bloods and exalted
fourwillows: the only mortal hero, that is
Delwyn: Because Heroic Mortal is nothing more than a road before you become someone, right, Quin?
Delwyn nods
fourwillows: all other heroism is attached to mystical heritage
Delwyn: Who do the Exaltations go to, though?
fourwillows: and this guy is awesome because he is the only dude who's a hero and not magic
fourwillows: i suppose that you exalt at the instant you claim your heroism
fourwillows: hey, link me to si-the-soundtrack again
Delwyn: But the HM guy is the only one who became heroic without a shard latching on him at that exact moment? And since it has to happen at once, all shards hate him and he can't get power?
Delwyn: Poor guy
Delwyn: That'd be a decent shounen plot where the protagonist gets empowered by /something/ halfway through
fourwillows: i think that he has to find some alternative, specifically human power
fourwillows: perhaps the POWER OF LOVE
Delwyn: Yes! \o/
charlequin: haha
charlequin: yes
charlequin: that is clearly what happens
charlequin: or, alternately
charlequin: the power of murdering
charlequin: I am pretty sure there is specifically a graphic novel where that is what happens
charlequin: but, yeah, re: your earlier question col
charlequin: there are two factors against heroic mortals
charlequin: one is that power in the Exalted universe is, at least to a certain degree, really actually handed out because you "deserve" it
charlequin: and the other is that having power is literally necessary to accomplish any worthwhile goals
charlequin: so the concept of a heroic mortal as a person who goes around and does cool things as a person is silly, because
charlequin: a) there's a threshold above which, if they are that cool, there is no excuse in the game's metaphysics for them NOT gaining superpowers, and
charlequin: b) if they for whatever reason aren't getting powers bestowed from outside, if they're really heroic they'll want to accomplish their goals, which means that they NEED power, which means that finding a way to acquire it will become their most important goal basically right away
Delwyn: Exactly! I like HMs on the background, but the second you protagonize them, you have no excuse not to give them superpowers somehow.
Delwyn: Also, that is what always puzzled me. Because I always viewed Exalted as the most hopeful power system ever. You get power for being emotional/dramatic/driven. It can be anyone. Etc.
Delwyn: Hopeful/Fair (In a sense, egalitarian(sp?))
David: well
David: i think that is pretty true.
fourwillows: to the degree that meritocracy is egalitarian
David: but i also think there is precedent for power making you bad
fourwillows: i think his name should be One Mortal Hero, too
charlequin: hahaha
David: so while anyone who can be dramatically important can become powerful, the powerful people are busy making the world a very unsafe unpleasant place
charlequin: yes, there is precedent for power making you bad, but, like
David: the only reason they can't just outright ruin it is that powerful people come from anywhere
David: and try to stop them until they turn crazy and evil
charlequin: that's counter-crossed by the fact that power also gives you the potential to identify and avoid that problem
David: it's weirdly cyclical, i think
charlequin: mmhm
Delwyn: I am not saying power doesn't make you bad. In fact, it has to, as usually one gets power TO counter another one who also has power and does bad things with them
charlequin: like, I always hate the "hey what if exalts put mortals in charge" thing
charlequin: because it's like, dudes
charlequin: mortals are literally inherently less good at governance
Delwyn is speaking in a general sense here; I mean, you won't run for a political career if you don't want to beat the other candidates, and you do so because you think they are doing bad things and you can do well, right?
David: quin: yes, this is also true!
charlequin: yeah
David: that is part of the cycle
Delwyn: Yes, it is
David: this is the cycle of conflict that makes the world turn
charlequin: I think that Stephenls' analysis is pretty solid here
charlequin: which is that it's an utterly hopeless setting, except that then you go and add PCs
charlequin: and PC's narrative ability to break vicious cycles turns it into a completely hopeful setting instead
charlequin: or, rather, CAN
David: do you suppose that this cycle is observed in-character?
charlequin: yes
charlequin: definitely
charlequin: that's ALSO kind of one of the big SI plot points at the moment
Delwyn: That cycle is VERY observed in-character
fourwillows: yeah, uh
fourwillows: i don't disagree with him
charlequin: with everyone taunting zahara about history repeating itself, and with the PCs discovering that the primordials are actually just refugees from ANOTHER ENTIRE WORLD tearing itself apart with power-based treachery
Delwyn: All drama-filled games I am in have some of that
charlequin: willows: I know, I was just apologizing for saying his name
fourwillows: i just think that his posting style and ideas have recently gone to hell
Delwyn: ADoA has. Zahara is pretty much 'abused, got power to break the abuse, abuses in turn'
Delwyn: ADoA... heck. Remember FIAT telling you the caricatures you saw in the nightmare are just more OVERT than the real ones?
David: yeah
PassengerPigeon: well as quin noted
David: i think that one of the major, if not THE major theme of Exalted is "power corrupts"
charlequin: oh hi pige
PassengerPigeon: SI is kind of dealing with this "what happens to people who don't exalt" thing
PassengerPigeon: but like
Delwyn: There's alot of conflict and decadence there that can lead to a) the infighting they had before that left the north as scarred as it is now, or b) for them to be such grand, good and at the same time terrible leading figures. Not that I want it to come to THAT, but I am letting it drift as close to it as dramatically possible ^_~
PassengerPigeon: I actually kind of think that a really fundamental and important element of the exalted setting is that the underdog can and should win
PassengerPigeon: so like
PassengerPigeon: I can understand why you would want to play heroic mortals
PassengerPigeon: and I don't think that they HAVE to exalt to be able to win setting-wise
PassengerPigeon: although they might to win system-wise
Delwyn: Well, they have to 'something', if not Exalt
charlequin: pigeon: how could they win, though, if they are purely mortal
Delwyn: Become an amalgam, become a behemoth, become a god...
charlequin: like, when different essence-wielders confront one another, I can see and accept the ways that personal skill/cleverness/trickery/right-itude let you win out over technically more powerful opponents
charlequin: but as a mortal you're basically, like, disconnected from the fundamental currency of action in the universe
PassengerPigeon: uh
PassengerPigeon: see, in SI I agree
PassengerPigeon: but in canon, that isn't so
PassengerPigeon: because they can stunt
David: but in canon they are bad at stunting
Kraken: But they can't /do/ anything with those stunts.
PassengerPigeon: well, uh
charlequin: yeah
PassengerPigeon: I mean, they can do ANYTHING with those stunts
PassengerPigeon: they can't do anything with the MOTES
charlequin: they can't HAVE POWERS with the stunts
PassengerPigeon: well, like, why can't they
charlequin: uh
PassengerPigeon: I'm kind of heavily relying here on the idea that charms are essentially codified stunts
charlequin: because they don't
Kraken: They can get two dice, and an effect any Exalt can trivially duplicate for 1-3m, is roughly how it works.
charlequin: mm
Kraken: And the latter part is really a /big/ assumption.
PassengerPigeon: is it?
PassengerPigeon: how so
David: well, they can get two dice and/or do something they normally can't
David: parry lethal, for instance
PassengerPigeon: I want to point out that I defined the setting/system separation for a reason
PassengerPigeon: I agree that systemically heroic mortals are probably incapable of taking over the world
Kraken: Well, I guess technically you could stunt so good you can make HGD or whatever.
PassengerPigeon: but I don't think that the distinction between exalt and human is any more cosmic than the distinction between terrestrial and celestial really
PassengerPigeon: etc.
charlequin: really?
PassengerPigeon: and so I think that the setting definitely DOES basically say that a large number of basically weak people fighting for a good cause can defeat a smaller number of extremely powerful beings
charlequin: hmm
PassengerPigeon: like
charlequin: see, I see one thing as being qualitatively different about mortal -> DB as compared to DB -> celestial
PassengerPigeon: it's not like this hasn't happen several times
charlequin: which is that DBs and Celestials both have the ability to explicitly and reliably extend their abilities beyond their natural bounds, and mortals don't
charlequin: and furthermore that ability is, in several meaningful senses, essentially unbounded
Kraken: Well, technically a mortal can learn MA, which gets them some.
PassengerPigeon: what are you talking about, quin?
PassengerPigeon: charms?
PassengerPigeon: because frankly, I think stunts are, again, notably more unbounded than charms
charlequin: they're not reliable
charlequin: which means they're not generalizable beyond, like, any given instant of PC decision-making
charlequin: like:
PassengerPigeon: in what sense are they not reliable
charlequin: I would agree that you can set up basically any individual situation with a single decision-point and, no matter how dire it looks, a given heroic mortal can conceivably stunt out of it
Kraken: In that sometimes you get a +1, sometimes a 3, and just how much sfx you get with them is decided by ST whim.
charlequin: but I do not believe that this is true of an iteration of that problem either in serial (lots of HMs) or parallel (one HM getting into lots of scrapes)
charlequin: yeah, that
charlequin: you can reliably get +1 stunts, but you can't reliably get specific charm-like effects from stunting
charlequin: and unlike charms, you actively lose your ability to lean on the same area as you use it more
PassengerPigeon: well, uh
Kraken: Like sure, you can maybe stunt /one/ HGD, but I defy you to survive one turn of SI level conflict relying entirely on stunts.
charlequin: yes
PassengerPigeon: good heroic mortals are going to be stunting +3 every single time
PassengerPigeon: because they are the protagonists
PassengerPigeon: but again
Kraken: They're not.
PassengerPigeon: I don't know how this conversation keeps coming back to system
charlequin: well, I'm viewing the system as a model for the world, but uh
PassengerPigeon: sure
charlequin: we can back up to a different point of attack if you want to rephrase to get away from that
PassengerPigeon: actually PLAYING heroic mortals killing all the exalts would be very difficult and challenging to play
PassengerPigeon: I am not saying I could do it
PassengerPigeon: but like
PassengerPigeon: you seem to keep assuming mediocre-to-poor abilities on the part of the players
PassengerPigeon: and I'm like
PassengerPigeon: I'm not examining the average case
PassengerPigeon: those guys die
PassengerPigeon: I am saying that the stunt system does, theoretically, give heroic mortals the ability to compete
PassengerPigeon: and thus
PassengerPigeon: that the difference you are defining between exalts and humans is not as significant as you are suggesting
PassengerPigeon: because that's the point
PassengerPigeon: you're saying, as far as I can see, "they just can't do it"
PassengerPigeon: and I'm like "no, they CAN, it's just impossibly hard"
charlequin: ah, ok
charlequin: so let me take this from a slightly different tack
charlequin: both exalts and mortals have the ability to stunt
charlequin: if we interpret this as "the ability to achieve localized effects of arbitrary effectiveness and to acquire narrative force and control via coolness," this is definitely, like, as good as "charms" (categorically) a thing to have
charlequin: would you agree to that, before I go any further?
PassengerPigeon: yes
charlequin: ok
charlequin: so
fourwillows: i have an analysis that i think answers the difference in your thinking
fourwillows: it is the question of the relative authority of stunts and the underlying system
charlequin: even if we avoid talking about the system directly, stunts have a higher variance of effectiveness than charms: sometimes something won't be as cool as intended, and other times something will be so cool it will give you access to an ability far outstripping what a charm would conceivably get you
charlequin: willows: hmm
charlequin: I'll pause
charlequin: because I'd like to hear that expanded upon
fourwillows: if you assume that stunts are integrated into that system, such that their weight is exactly defined by their mechanical description
fourwillows: then it's clear that Exalted win over heroes all the time
PassengerPigeon: hmm
PassengerPigeon: I am not sure I agree but go on
fourwillows: if you assume that stunts are outside and above that system
fourwillows: then it puts people on basicalyl equal turn if they stunt ever
fourwillows: that was all i had
PassengerPigeon: can you clarify the weight defined by their mechanical description thing
PassengerPigeon: what exactly does that mean
fourwillows: like, they are as important as "regain some resources and get free dice"
fourwillows: but your description can't be interpreted to have significant consequences
PassengerPigeon: aha
PassengerPigeon: okay
PassengerPigeon: I feel like that is actually specifically not what the definition of stunts in core says
charlequin: yes, I agree
fourwillows: it possible
Kraken: I would agree with that too.
charlequin: I think I claimed a position that was too extreme to defend
fourwillows: i haven't read it recently
charlequin: but I have a weaker position that is still far away from pigeon's
PassengerPigeon: it is also wrong
charlequin: haha
charlequin: basically where I was going with that point by point analysis is that there's a relationship between charms and stunts, for essence users
charlequin: where each covers the weakness of the other
charlequin: and HMs are missing half of that equation
charlequin: which means that (here's a part where I weaken my stance)
charlequin: if you are a PC HM or group thereof
charlequin: and you the player do a good job of being consistently awesome
charlequin: you can theoretically outstrip anyone else who isn't played as far to the hilt as you are, regardless of "power level"
charlequin: BUT
charlequin: as soon as you step outside of the benefit-of-the-doubt PC group situation, you run into the issue that as an HM
charlequin: one single time screwing up your stunt generally means you instantly lose your conflict
PassengerPigeon: okay
PassengerPigeon: yes, I agree
charlequin: which is why I like willows' One Mortal Hero idea :P
PassengerPigeon: I would argue though that the same "blink and you die" thing applies to dbs vs solars and potentially to solars vs primordials
PassengerPigeon: how many times do you think it is safe to not save your charm for defense when fighting a primordial
Kraken: Not really. Since as quin said, Exalts have charms and combos as a safety net.
charlequin: yes, that's my point
charlequin: especially solars, whose charm package is built with the explicit goal of "keep you alive against more powerful foes while you stunt to victory"
charlequin: but even for DBs it's still true to a meaningful degree
Kraken: So like, the one time you can't stunt HGD vs the Incrediable Attack Of Doom, you actually pull out HGD
PassengerPigeon: hm, I wasn't clear
PassengerPigeon: what I meant was
PassengerPigeon: it is just as true to say "one screw up and you are dead meat"
Kraken: Yeah, but there is a 1pt common sense merit to get around that :P
PassengerPigeon: it's just that that screw up for solars is more likely to be "oops, bad charm use selection" than "oops, I stunted bad" because they have charms to rely on
PassengerPigeon: so, that's HARDER
PassengerPigeon: like, you are less likely to screw up as a solar
PassengerPigeon: sure
PassengerPigeon: but people DO
charlequin: yeah, I don't think that's true
charlequin: unless they're played by will, almost all exalts make at least solid base-level use of their charms
charlequin: I agree that, like, a tactical error will kill you
charlequin: but in that case I can just spin it off into two separate categories
charlequin: and say that as a solar, a tactical error will kill you
charlequin: whereas as a mortal, a tactical error OR a failure of cleverness will kill you
PassengerPigeon: okay
PassengerPigeon: yeah, I agree with that
charlequin: to me, that's still enough that (again, removing PC agency) mortals are basically statistically doomed against exalts
charlequin: especially since as you gather more mortals in one place, that INCREASES the chances that SOMEONE will screw up
PassengerPigeon: well
PassengerPigeon: once again I agree that removing PC agency mortals can't compete
PassengerPigeon: I am certainly not arguing that
charlequin: yeah
charlequin: but you did like
charlequin: convince me that like
charlequin: a specific group of HMs played as PCs is more viable than I originally claimed
charlequin: though I still kind of feel like my b) point of "if you have heroic goals and are a mortal, getting empowered should be at the top of your priority list" still holds reasonably true
PassengerPigeon: woot
PassengerPigeon: uh
PassengerPigeon: well, sure
PassengerPigeon: that would kind of ruin the point of this theoretical campaign though
fourwillows: i feel like i would not use the exalted system for it in the first place
fourwillows: because i want the system to not resist me when One Mortal Hero has like a meeting with V'Neef who is like, 'join my house'
fourwillows: and he is not scared and he says no