This may be a more general role-playing question than a specific Ars Magica question. Come to that, it will probably veer wildly from ethics into other things...

Anyway, I'm looking for a little advice on how to handle a current situation in the saga I'm currently playing in.

We have a very inventive player who's playing a criamon with a very strict ethical code. The code runs from 1 to 10 with 1 being the most loved to 10 being the most despised and at each step various beings are listed (angels at 1, men at 3, animals at 4, demons at 10 etc).

He's a pacifist healer by intent but in the opinion of the other characters (and more importantly, the other players) his personality is flawed; he will heal a man but his hopes and dreams and rights mean very little.

We recently played Cause and Cure (a nice little story almost written for this character). As part of the resolution, the characters are faced with a central character flaw. For this character I picked up on the "respect for life but no respect for the living" aspect to his character.

This unleashed a protracted barrage of email back and forth with the player fighting his corner and explaining that the flaw was entirely imagined on my part. As a result, it's all left a sour taste in my mouth and I'm less inclined to focus any stories on this character in the future as I don't want to have to go through the same experience.

So how do we deal with these situations? If the player (not the character) says "destroying memories (one of his favoured magical abilities) isn't an offensive action", how can the other players (who think it is) be accomodated? If the player doesn't see his character's behaviour as offensive, how can the other players, who often think it is, be accomodated? It is at the stage now where we are trying to keep it in-game which means the character in question is excluded from some activities because the other character don't want him stuffing things up.

If it was done knowingly (if the player acknowledged the flaw and played to it and allowed the room for growth) this would be fun but because the player is unable to see things from the viewpoint of the other players/characters it is causing difficulty.

I'm desperate for a little advice. I'm enjoying the saga on the whole but this character, and yes, I guess the way it is played, is causing too much grief. What's my best course of action?

Well this is a perfectly valid ethical code to play. I can see the argument that damaging the memory could be considered a pacifist action by some magi. The problem here is that you are trying to keep the whole thing in character, and you shouldn't.

The player thinks he's playing perfectly well, and you don't think he is. You need to talk, OOC, about how you think his character is basically evil, and how it doesn't fit with the tone of game you are trying to play. He will reply that he doesn't see his character as evil, and he's right from his own view of things, and you need to see if you can reach a compromise. IC isn't the place to fix OOC.

Are you really having an argument about:

1) What *IS* and what *IS'T* a moral act?

2) What is or isn't a moral act for an ArM character?

3) What is or isn't consistant to be considered a moral act for a character wrt a particular set of moral values?

From reading your account, you appear to be arguing 1) and your player 3).

Imo arguing from 1) is problematic wrt a roleplaying situation. I would avoid it.

Your player seems adamant that his character holds a consistant moral philosophy. In many games this would sufficient. However in a game of ArM there is a fixed objective moral standard. Does the God of your ArM saga consider the act sinful? As the GM this is your call.

You may reasonably be asked to justify your position moderately well theologically. As a result a player's character may be holding objectively false beliefs, but that shouldn't be a problem OOC.

'Cause and Cure' should have been presented as a situation where those false beliefs confront game reality. How the character reacts is up to the player.

Perhaps the character would simply reason that the entity who constructed the test was in error; that her beliefs were false. In fact this is highly plausible, removing the need for you to lay 'The Truth' (tm) on the gaming table baldly.

The argument therefore should have been between the character and the NPC in charge of the Cause or Cure castle.

Hope this helps

Regards

- D Woods

I'm somewhat confused on a number of points...

(1) The player who is causing the trouble states that what he is doing isn't evil while the other players say it is. Well first off why does this matter in the least? There is no alignment in AM and pacifists can be evil, so what is the problem here?

(2) Perception is going to matter a great deal.

The player has the right to define how his player acts unless there is some obvious discrepency between the character and the players desires. In which case you as the gamemaster/storyguide or whatever should apply some guidance and support (or a proverbial kick in the pants if all else fails).

But why is it important how the other characters percieve this persons actions? Are they worried that he will start playing with their memories? Harm the covenant? Harm the Order of Hermes?

(3) If there is an OOC problem, then deal with it OOC. But before you do that you have to see the players point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to see it and understand it. If you don't then it becomes a case of "IS! IS NOT!" and that is frankly unresolvable except by excluding the player.

If you believe the players actions are not incharacter then discuss that with the player, and not via Email. If you can't resolve the issue then you have to either remove the character or the player.

You might also ask yourself why you feel it is important that this character (or the player) acknowledges this flaw? Because until you understand your own motivations you aren't going to be terribly good at resolving the situation.

I'm not sure any of this will help, but trying to give advice based on the information you presented would require Ann Landers I think. The best thing I can say is to take a step back from the situation and look at the actions of you, the player, and the other players and see what the motivations of each is (or what you think they are) and then proceed in a maner that keeps your gaming group together.

This seems to be a tricky situation.

As a GM of many years standing, moral problems and ambiguities have been my major stock-in-trade for rpg adventure fodder. This means that my players are used to me pressing their characters about what they truly believe, who they really side with, what is really important to them, etc. This has led to some very intense roleplaying sessions and a heck of a lot of fun. No, not everything is serious, deep, and heavy, but there is enough of it to truly leaven the game.

"Cause & Cure" is one of the few published adventures for any system that I truly enjoyed, simply because of the focus on "how are you truly seen" and "what do you truly believe". On the other hand it is potentially quite a tricky adventure to play out due to this fact. The storyguide will be the one setting the stage, so he will be the one deciding what is "important" about any given character, what is the relavent core of the character. For my own part, then, I only used this adventure once and that VERY late in a saga, by which time we had determined most of the "realities" of each character.

It sounds as if you and the player had some serious differences of opinion about the character. It also sounds like the player has a vision of the character as a Pure White Hat, a person that everyone would immediately identify as a good person with few, if any, flaws, a position that is often very difficult to maintain in a game like Ars Magica. It sounds like you and the player need to have a real heart-to-heart on the topic.

For my own part, I can see the "attacking memories" being just as deadly as attacking the body. It is a very careful line, one that allows for the character to participate in combats that a session might bring up without giving in to bloodshed. Conversely it sounds like the character (not the player) has developed some interesting mental "shields" that allow him to justify these actions. As a GM this would certainly be a concept that I would play around with to see how it works out; how this works out between player and GM is a different matter.

Good luck with this.

//We have a very inventive player who's playing a criamon with a very strict ethical code. The code runs from 1 to 10 with 1 being the most loved to 10 being the most despised and at each step various beings are listed (angels at 1, men at 3, animals at 4, demons at 10 etc).//
//... the player (not the character) says "destroying memories (one of his favoured magical abilities) isn't an offensive action", ...//
I would say that this Criamon character argues like a medieval Christian fundamentalist, and - considering that in the ArM game world angels, saints, miracles and magic are for real - can see nothing wrong in that. For some self-righteous medieval fundamentalist magus, protecting the divinely inspired order of the world, as revealed in the bible, by erasing a few unfortunate's memories is certainly not only legit, but commendable. After all, there is no commandment "Thou shalt not mess with other peoples' brains" or such - and he apparently is not convinced that his magic by itself is sinful.

//It is at the stage now where we are trying to keep it in-game which means the character in question is excluded from some activities because the other character don't want him stuffing things up.//
In game that's the obvious reaction. But from your post I conclude that you have to take some initiative outside the game.

//This unleashed a protracted barrage of email back and forth with the player fighting his corner and explaining that the flaw was entirely imagined on my part.//
//... but because the player is unable to see things from the viewpoint of the other players/characters it is causing difficulty.//
I can read two things into that, and don't know which one is true. *Either* your player is a diehard Christian fundamentalist himself (though not yet convinced that ArM is a manifestation of evil - hence there is still hope for him ;-)).
*Or* he is rather young and impressionable, and just got caught up in in-character thinking, thus convincing himself of the soundness of his character's morals.

In both cases I would recommend to talk to him in private and well apart from the game, and impress on him that to be part of the gaming group, he has to accept the other players' - and also your - take on ethics the same way as they - and you - accept his.

Don't try to convince him about real-world ethics beyond that, unless you are confident about your dialectics and your relationship to him. If a fundamentalist, he will give you a hard time and likely rather leave the group then submit. If just youthfully trying out some set of opinions, unless you are pretty skillful in opposing them he might rather for a time fully embrace them to spite you than giving up on them for your better arguments.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//The player has the right to define how his player acts unless there is some obvious discrepency between the character and the players desires.//

Here's the difficult part. His actions and intentions are generally consistent, especially now we have the ten-point system of ethics to refer to.

//But why is it important how the other characters percieve this persons actions? Are they worried that he will start playing with their memories? Harm the covenant? Harm the Order of Hermes?//

Well, we've already been there. But to be honest, I don't think any of the players or I knew how to play through that situation. As a result, there were no recriminations at the time.

//If you believe the players actions are not incharacter then discuss that with the player, and not via Email. If you can't resolve the issue then you have to either remove the character or the player.//

The actions are in character. I'm certainly enjoying the character less and less.

//You might also ask yourself why you feel it is important that this character (or the player) acknowledges this flaw? Because until you understand your own motivations you aren't going to be terribly good at resolving the situation.//

This is the crucial point. As far as the player is concerned his characters actions do not display a disrespect for those around him. Those around him however feel differently. If the player was knowingly playing the character while also acknowledging the flawed and egregious nature of the character there'd be no problem. But, because he can't see the flaw he sees any comeback for his actions as unfair as he was simply playing in character and adhering to his moral code.

//As a GM of many years standing, moral problems and ambiguities have been my major stock-in-trade for rpg adventure fodder.//

Me too. And cause and cure is quite good for all that given the nature of the resolution and the final few scenes of the story.

//For my own part, I can see the "attacking memories" being just as deadly as attacking the body.//

And generally that's the feeling our troupe has. It's quite legitimate for the player in question and his character to share the opposite view, and they do. This is where the conflict arises. I think I feel quite constrained because if I try to show up any contradictions theres a long "explanation" as to how and why the character is just playing out his ethics. Fine, I'm sure Hitler had a firm grasp on his own ideology but it didn't stop people disagreeing with him.

Everyone has offered good advice and excellent points to consider. I have four points to add.

First, it's natural for people to take the actions of their characters personally. A characters victories, defeats, strengths, and weaknesses are typically shared by both character and player. In many, characters are simply an extension of oneself. With this in mind, any discussion of a characters's flaws can be taken personally as they can be seen as flaws in the player, in 'me'. One must make an effort to protect the player, to not suggest that they are evil, that their ethics are flawed, or that they made a bad character.

Typically, a gaming group is a collection of friends. So I would make an effort to clarify that point. I would establish that we are friends and we gather to hang out, have a good time, and have fun roleplaying. As real people, however this ends, one must still having the common ground of friendship. Without that, this will end with the loss of a player/friend.

Second, establishing that you are a group of friends, I would like to suggest that one isn't obligated to change anothers mind. That is, the troupe can exist with a difference of opinion. I don't think you are obligated to convince him that his character is doing something 'evil' and the player isn't obligated to convince you his actions are 'good'. What is necessary is a resolution that allows the troupe to continue to have fun roleplaying.

On this board, my old friend Steve often posts. We do not see eye to eye on how Parma Magica works. Our solution is when he Gm's Parma works his way, when I GM Parma works my way. When neither of us GM, we can have fun confusing and convincing the other GM that were both right.

In terms of your game, I think you should establish that you were GM and you made a call. The player should embrace the flaw and use it as a means to expand the character. That could mean coming to terms with being 'evil' and changing, or it may mean doing whatever he can to over come the flaw and return to the way he was (no flaw and still 'evil').

Consider that Ars is alignment free, there is no elemental plane of good and evil. Angels and demons are not in a habit of appearing simply to tell people what they are doing is right or wrong. Characters live their life, die, and then go to heaven or hell. That last bit is typically outside of the game. So again, I don't think it's necessary to establish the a particular character is 'good' or 'evil'.

Third, if you can get past the notion of good and evil you need to address a bigger issue with your player. That issue is that the player is at odds with the rest of the troupe. The troupe can't function at it's optiumum, if the players as friends feel negative feelings towards each other. In such a state, the troupe will fail and the game will end.

Now consider that in my game, characters have had long standing rivals with other characters, that Characters have even killed other Characters in the game. But these arch rivals and arch enemies, do not carry over to the players, who are friends. I point this out because it's possible for characters to hate each other, but the players must be friends, or at least friendly to each other. If this can't happen, the troupe is disfuntional and you will either lose a player or disband.

Fourth, you might need some time. I remember once my brother GM'd an adventure where my Magus was cut across his cheek. The cut was mystical, it was before warping, but my brother argued I couldn't use magic to undo the scar on my characters face. I freaked out. I didn't want to play a scared character, I argued there was no justification for a scar that couldn't be healed by magic. He stuck to his guns and I freaked out more. Later, much later, that scar became a defining momemt for my character. It's was a great personality development in my character, and I simply needed time to see that.

Your player may need time to embrace a flaw. Seriously, how many are eager to have a flaw dumped on them by a GM? Give him some time because ethics aside, you've just made his character statistically 'worse' and rarely is a player happy with that.

So you need to address the player in a manner that doesn't attack him personally. You need to detail that his actions are causing stress for the other players. That change needs to occur, so that everyone is happy, so that the game is FUN. That change can not exclusively be on his shoulders, or that will be a source of future resentment. The other players and perhaps yourself must become a little more tolerate of this characters ways, but on the condition that this character and in particular the player becomes someone more fun to play with.

This is a game after all. If at the end of the night, people are angry and bitter, then the troupe as a whole isn't playing it right. Whatever happens, I feel this point is key. Everyone needs to have a good time while they play, and at the end of the night they need to feel as if they want to play again. Differences in opinion concerning ethics or rules interpretation may be unresolveable. So one must find a way to gather and have fun, despite differences in opinion/interpretation. A little humility, and a lot of cooperation on the parts of everyone, is the only way friends can gather and have FUN on a regular basis.

Good luck and keep us posted,

Chuck

The whole "I'm just playing my character" argument for me got solved a long time ago. Whenever someone started pointing that out either to me or others, they found out quickly the cost for that whiny excuse.

Basically, if he's in his rights to whine that excuse when others confront him, they're certainly in their rights to say the same thing when their own characters or NPCs start responding to his actions in character. Basically he is demanding respect, even exoneration for his actions because he's 'playing his character', yet doesn't believe there should be a cost for it. That's a very immature standpoint.

If you do something that others abhor, even if you have no problem with it, you can rightly expect conflict. Whining about it afterwards is ludicrous. So if this Criamon thinks nothing of erasing the memories of those who offend him, let him answer a Certamen challenge when he does it to a Custo of another Magus, or basically offends that magus with his actions. While there isn't much in the Code that says you can't do it, if the act really gets a Magus's dander up, he'll make him answer for it in Certamen. The player will ultimately see that there are consequences for his actions, which is really what this is about. Especially if the duel is Perdo Mentem and he loses the duel and gets some memories erased by the victor with the winning spell.

Tell him, 'that's fine, I understand you're playing in character, I hope you understand that others are responding in character to your actions.'. There is no alignment system in Ars, so the whole 'morality' about it wouldn't a great concern to me. The main thing I'd have a problem with is if he's not role-playing merits or flaws that he chose. In all honesty, I don't think erasing memories violates the pacifist flaw. That doesn't mean his action shouldn't have consequences though. Ain't no such thing as a fee lunch!

I just reread your first post and saw a bit more of the problem. Basically leave the arguments in character and that's it. This has the added benefit of meaning there won't be an argument at all, who would he argue with? When that Magus finally dies and is judged by the Powers That Be he might be in for quite a shock.

That reminds me of a Family Guy episode where Brian (the dog) and Pete are having a discussion about Peter's recent actions and Lois (wife) being so upset about them.

Peter: "Geez, I never thought Lois could get so mad at me!"

Brian: "Yeah, who would have thought Welfare Fraud would have been one of her buttons."

Basically switch the Criamon for Peter, God for Lois, Brian for the Devil and you have:

Criamon: "Geez, I was a pacifist, what was God so mad about?"

Devil: "Yeah, who would have thought destroying vital parts of a man's life would be one of his buttons? Right this way please."

The reason I bring that up of course is that is where this argument ultimately heads. But basically just limit the arguments to in character ones. If you've made your decision tell him to either handle it or not, but you won't allow it to disrupt the game any further.

As strange as this sounds, the Family Guy story reminds me of The Mahabharata. The very short chopped up version is the story of the honest man. A man wanted to go to heaven so bad, he decided he would never tell a lie. One day he witnesses a crime and he witnesses a man wrongly accused. The man wrongly accussed flees for if captured he would be put to death. When the guards arrive they ask the honest man, in which direction did the criminal go? Understanding that the guards meant the man who is wrongly accused, he told them truth, "That way!" The honest man, did not go heaven.

It's been a long time since I read that book, I'm sure I slaughtered the story, but you get the point. Even doing 'good' things can be 'bad'.

In the context of Ars, which is geared towards sagas. It's natural that player actions and reactions become more important than the final fate of characters. If this is to be sorted out 'in character", prepare for the characters to turn on each other or at least on one character. As long as the players can remain freinds, afterwards, I'm all for characters butting heads. There in lies the stories of epic proportion!

Chuck

This reminds me of an issue I once had in my own game. A (female!) player had her character mentally control another character, a female child really, forcing her to have sex with her. When I ruled this was rape and an Evil act (it was D&D, alignment was relevant) she was shocked and claimed it wasn't since she made the child enjoy it...

The issue wasn't really ever resolved per se. I made my ruling and we moved on. (It helped that everyone at the table agreed with me.)
If your player can't move pass this issue and accept that you are the one making rules rulings in your game, and that the other players are in control of how their characters feel about his, then you have bigger problems than disagreeing about morality.

>> Well this is a perfectly valid ethical code to play. I can see the argument that damaging the memory could be considered a pacifist action by some magi. The problem here is that you are trying to keep the whole thing in character, and you shouldn't.

Thanks for the support. I am the offending player. The basic premise of my character is that he is a pacifist doctor, who in order to survice in the brutal middle ages normally has to resort to invisiblity or changing appearance.

During one adventure, my character went into Twilight and landed up with a Puissant in Memory Loss spells.

Now the incident MArk L is referring too, was one where a fellow mage form the same covenant said something to the effect "Ooo, so your a pacifist are you Camelio, and can't fight back if I attack you, hummm", at which Camelio said "Just forget I told you I was a pacifist", and destroyed that short little memory.

Hardly Attila the Hun stuff really.

>> If the character thinks that destroying memories isn't evil or wrong, let him see how that maight affect others. SHow the devastation when a father forgets his family. When a priest forgets to give mass. When a soldier forgets to do his job. See what happens then.

As the player who controls the character, he wouldn't do any of thise things.

The context in which he has used memory loss magic is when he has been physically threatened himself, or ordered not to retrieve Corpus Vis (which he needs for medicinal purposes) from corpses (by 'Gather the Essence of the Beast' and then removing a single hair) by a Minstrel.

>> Your player seems adamant that his character holds a consistant moral philosophy. In many games this would sufficient. However in a game of ArM there is a fixed objective moral standard. Does the God of your ArM saga consider the act sinful? As the GM this is your call.

In ArM, doesn't God think magic is sinfull?

Hey thanks for clearing that up. I need to be reminded (often) that there are two sides to every story. My impression was that you were going around destroying memories willy nilly. In these cases, and when the one guy mocked you he had it coming.

Erasing memories in those cases is a lot more humane than what magi in my campaign have done. Is there other cases though? If not, feel free to ammend most of what I said.

>> "Cause & Cure" is one of the few published adventures for any system that I truly enjoyed, simply because of the focus on "how are you truly seen" and "what do you truly believe". On the other hand it is potentially quite a tricky adventure to play out due to this fact. The storyguide will be the one setting the stage, so he will be the one deciding what is "important" about any given character, what is the relavent core of the character. For my own part, then, I only used this adventure once and that VERY late in a saga, by which time we had determined most of the "realities" of each character.

As the player of the character that is under discussion, the problem I had was "Cause & Cure":

At the end of ‘Cause and Cure’ Lady Aldona told my character that she had been administering Arsenic to the characters for the purposes of research. Now she had previously been in contact with my character, telling him she was a healer (my character is a pacifist Aesclepiad doctor).

For surviving the scenario, each of our characters was to we could take a minor virtue each, as a present from Lady Aldona, as it was the end of the session, we where told to go away and think about it, and email back our thoughts.

I emailed back that my character would have been disgusted with Lady Aldona, for killing people for research and would have refused the gift of a minor virtue. I asked if he could take the ghostly wizard, but Mark as GM decided Lady Aldona would say ‘No’. Fair enough.

Now Camelio, who is desperate for Corpus Vis, always loots bodies to Corpus Vis, for his medical research. I was told that refusing the present, but benefiting from Lady Aldona’s murders by draining the corpses of Vis presented an inconsistent ethical stand.

My view is that because Lady Aldona did not know my character took the Vis from the corpses, my character was not condoning her murderous actions in anyway, where as accepting the present would have.

Below is an attempt at my characters moral code, I know its not water tight, but it’s the best I can do.

Further, this code forms part of a ‘Delusion’ minor flaw, because pacifistic veganism is so out of place in Medieval Europe:

My character is called Camelio btw.

Hierarchy of Creatures (1 – highest Value to 10 – lowest):

Valued Creatures
1. Angels – Loved
2. Wise men – this includes all magi, and philosophers (but not people who hold beliefs on faith), Healers – Loved.
3. Men – Liked
4. Animals – Liked
5. Butchers – Men who kill 4 – tolerated and where safe, persuaded to repent and give up butchery.
6. Murderers - Men who kill (or who intend to kill) 1 to 3 - to be shunned if safe to do so, or where safe, persuaded to repent and give up killing.

Unvalued Creatures
7. Friendly sentiant, unnatural creatures (Dragons, Fairies, etc) – Whilst of no value (i.e., killing a fairies is not murder), Camelio might like them on a personal level.
8. Unfriendly sentient, unnatural creatures (Dragons, Fairies, etc) – Of no value (i.e., killing a fairies is not murder), and should be killed, or otherwise made safe, if possible.
9. Man killing animal - Of no value (i.e., killing a fairies is not murder), and should be killed, or otherwise made safe, if possible.
10. Demons – Hated and should be killed, or otherwise made safe, if possible.

Camelio’s Ethics

Do not harm a valued creature, or encourage anyone else to harm a valued creature, nor by inaction allow a valued creature to be harmed.

Camelio’s Oath

It is the Hippocratic Oath in Mysteries, I cannot find my copy of Mysteries but it roughly translates to: “Do no harm to mankind”.

Notes of Camelio’s behavior

1. Camelio would not take a gift from the Lady Aldona as she is a murderer who should be shunned if safe to do so.

2. Camelio would take the dying mage instead in the hope of saving his life, despite having to ask Lady Aldona for permission.

3. Camelio will loot corpses for Vis whenever he can as not doing so might endanger the lives of people he might otherwise cure.

4. Camelio is afraid to fight the Lady Aldona as he thinks he will lose the fight and endanger the party, but he will report her to the Quesitors.

5. Camelio will fight others in order to save life, but his method of fighting against valued creatures is non-lethal (mentum spells and ‘encase in ice’)

6. Camelio is in practice, a vegan, but he could eat meat from an animal that died accidentally (in fact he finds the concept of eating meat more distasteful than eating manure). He could also eat unfertilized eggs, or dairy product taken from milk where the calf was not harmed. He could even eat Dragons Heart Soup, or Fairy Princess Hot Pot, but again he would find it distasteful.

7. Camelio would consider a magistrate who condemned a thief to death to be a murder.

>>I can read two things into that, and don't know which one is true. *Either* your player is a diehard Christian fundamentalist himself (though not yet convinced that ArM is a manifestation of evil - hence there is still hope for him ;-)).

Actually, I am a die hard agnostic, and I DO NOT share the same belief as my character.

>>*Or* he is rather young and impressionable, and just got caught up in in-character thinking, thus convincing himself of the soundness of his character's morals.

I and old - 45, but possibly impressionable. I think PM Tony Blair is a good bloke.

>> In both cases I would recommend to talk to him in private and well apart from the game, and impress on him that to be part of the gaming group, he has to accept the other players' - and also your - take on ethics the same way as they - and you - accept his.

My reason for this character was to create an outsider from Medieval society, who could, with the aid of magic, survive in it.

So Medieval society is violent, brutish and cruel: I created a character who is a pacifistic, vegan doctor. He survives by: a. Going invisible 2. Changing his appearance. 3. Using Perdo Mentm magic on his attackers.

The motivation for creating a character that is so dissonant with the Medieval Paradigm is that it causes Moral Dilemma, and Moral Dilemma causes drama.

>>Don't try to convince him about real-world ethics beyond that, unless you are confident about your dialectics and your relationship to him.

I am difficult to convince. I will not be convinced just on the basis that I am the odd one out, as I do believe that being in a minority of 1 does not make me mad. Mark has yet to convince me that my character is behaving against his code of ethics.

>>If a fundamentalist, he will give you a hard time and likely rather leave the group then submit.

I'm not a Christian fundamentalist. Actually I'm a meat eating agnostic, who has worked in the defence industry. But I do go to church and say my prayers for a little divine intervention now and then. Life can be tough, and you won't find an atheist in a foxhole. Presently, I am praying for a job so that I don't go under.

>>If just youthfully trying out some set of opinions, unless you are pretty skilful in opposing them he might rather for a time fully embrace them to spite you than giving up on them for your better arguments.

I have tried to put my viewpoint across as maturely as possible. I am doing my best to play my character, but Camelio is eccentric.

OK, now in canon in the last edition, you had a pacifist who had spells that wrapped people up in spidersilk, that manacled them, or knocked them unconcious. His pacifism was that he just couldn't do permanent harm, and even then he was technically able to if his alternative was to watch, say, one of his dependents tortured to death.

Non-combatant, to me, means you can't damage people: it doesn't mean you are a shiny, happy hippie person who lets people beat the tar out of you, due to your incredible pereverence and niceness.

Having this argument with the rest of us chipping in is no substitute for the two of you sitting down and working this out, by the way. Taking your arguments to the list isn't really a healthy way to end them, because all we can tell you is "The rules say this, but no-one actually plays 100% by the rules" and "In my saga, I'd allow it, but your mileage may vary."

You really do need to talk this through with each other.

>> Your player seems adamant that his character holds a consistant moral philosophy. In many games this would sufficient. However in a game of ArM there is a fixed objective moral standard. Does the God of your ArM saga consider the act sinful? As the GM this is your call.

> In ArM, doesn't God think magic is sinfull?

Not in the new edition, no. He thinks Pride is sinful, and magi tend to be very prideful. Being able to make stuff out of thin air does that to humans.

I'd stress there is a difference between being a pacifist and being good, and that it is perfectly possible to play games with characters are various places on a continumn of good and evil, if that's what ytour group wants. I mean, I wrote the new Tremere, and some of them are deeply morally-conflicted people who do horrible things becasue the world doesn't always offer you happy endings and if you have the choice of bad or worse, someone really does need to do the bad thing, without blowing it of as situationally good.

But that's just my game. Some people hate this sort of thing.

> Now Camelio, who is desperate for Corpus Vis, always loots bodies
> to Corpus Vis, for his medical research. I was told that refusing
> the present, but benefiting from Lady Aldona’s murders by draining
> the corpses of Vis presented an inconsistent ethical stand.

Well, to many modern minds, it does. There's the ongoing debate as to wether Menegelian data concerning hypthermia should be used in medical research. It's the best data we have abouj the process of the destruction of the body by cold, but it was gathered by the genocidal murder of Jews. Does the value of the cure you might develop outweigh the distastefulness of scientific collaboration with a mass murderer? IMO, no, but in the opinion of some others, yes. You get a lot of medical students historically doing things like paying grave robbers for disection corpses, because they think the minor sin is less bad than doing nothing and letting their patients die.

I'd point out that "benefiting from murder" happens all the time, and doesn't imply condoning the murder. If someone murdered a relative of yours, and the relative left you a gold watch, have you benefited from the murder? Yes, but...you din't encourage it, or know about it and fail to prevent it.

That being said, yes, there's a moral dilema there. I'm a vegetarian, but in the past I've killed and eaten animals. I think if you want to eat animals, you really should be personally willing to kill them. I'm not saying you need to kill every one, merely that you should be aware of the process of death, be willing to do it, and do it a few times so that you know what people are doping on your behalf. I regularly speask to meateaters who simply won't and can't kill animals, because they are too cute, but are perfectly willing to eat them once they are sliced into unrecognisable pieces and put in cold room trays. They seem to work on "Since it is already dead, that's OK." Incitement doesn't come into it for some meat eaters (that if they didn't know they could sell the sausages afterward, they'd not kill animals.) Does Camillo incite the deaths? I think that's a no.

Does he defile the corpses afterward, well yes, but medical students have done that for many centuries, using a sort of greater good argument.

What I'm saying is, this is difficult stuff, which makes for good play, but you need to discuss it in your own game.

> The actions are in character. I'm certainly enjoying the character
> less and less.

Then this is an OOC problem. It's perfectly possible to play all kinds of characters in Ars Magica, but not all kinds, in all games. For example, in my games, I used to always ban the Leprosy flaw, or the one that made you lie around in bed all day. They were permissible, but didn't fit the stories I wanted to tell. So, I was upfront about this: my rule was "no hermits"

You need a similar rule, which is upfront, that says "All of the characters are percieved as good by all of the other characters. We will vet each other's characters regularly (or in the first session, or whatever)."

> This is the crucial point. As far as the player is concerned his
> characters actions do not display a disrespect for those around
> him. Those around him however feel differently.

Sorry, which people? There aren't any people involved except your players.

> If the player was knowingly playing the character while also
> acknowledging the flawed and egregious nature of the character
> there'd be no problem. But, because he can't see the flaw he sees
> any comeback for his actions as unfair as he was simply playing in
> character and adhering to his moral code.

"I'm just playing my character as designed." really cuts no ice, if you, in advance, have made clear that you expect all characters to be shiny happy people. A player is absolutely responsible for his character's actions, because he or she designed the character. If you haven't warned them about your expectations in advance, then the player has an entirely legitimate beef with you: you shouldn't have allowed the character into your game if you didn't want him to be played as his design indicates he should be played.

You need to own that and acknowledge it, before you talk this through with your player. Accepting a character into your game is a promise that the effort put into constructing the character will be rewarded, and you are breaking that promise. Now I know you have no option but to do so, because the game has to be one that you can enjoy too, but the failure to communicate expectations to your player really is your fault, and it'll help, when you tell him that you can't enjoy him playing his character anymore, if you make it very clear that you acknowledge that you made a mistake in letting things get this far.

////>>Don't try to convince him about real-world ethics beyond that, unless you are confident about your dialectics and your relationship to him.

I am difficult to convince. I will not be convinced just on the basis that I am the odd one out, as I do believe that being in a minority of 1 does not make me mad. Mark has yet to convince me that my character is behaving against his code of ethics.////

The point I see as a problem is that one or more people are trying to get someone else to agree with them, or vice versa. It's simply not going to happen. No one agrees with anyone else when it comes to the minutia of ethical situations.

This ethical issue may only exist in a fictional game, but it is still an ethical issue and it may simply be that Mark will never agree with you. I think the more time people spend trying to convince you that your wrong (or vice versa), the longer the lot of you will bash heads.

The standard Ars Magica game world is open enough to suggest multiple view points and rarely provides answers as to which view is correct. In this sense, it is like the real world. Your troupe needs to try and find a way to resolve this issue without trying to preach (from either side of the issue) to one and other.

The way I see it, 'in game' here is the resolution.

If there is no reason for the benifactor to know of your wrong doings (this one or others- real or imagined) then the benifactor has no basis for using these actions as a basis for rewarding or punishing you. If the benifactor has knowledge of wrong doings, (real or imagined- right or wrong), they have a basis for rewarding or punishing your character. If Mark can find a "legitimate" reason for the *character* to reward/punish your character I would accept it as the way it is. If Mark is trying to punish your character for not agreeing with his world view, then the lot of you need to discuss this out of character.

Chuck

> I am doing my best to play my character, but Camelio is eccentric.

You designed his eccentricty, though, so you are responsbile for it.

You have designed a character according to the rules you were given, but you won't be able to play him anymore. Perhaps a modified form of him, but not as he is now. This is a bad thing, which you can get peeved at, but the thing you need to own and think about is this: you are not playing well. I'm sorry to be as blunt as this.

I know that's a harsh thing to say, because you are playing your character well, but you are failing to meet one of your primal obligations as a player. The other players must enjoy your character. If they don't there isn't a game. Now you can argue that they should, and if you can rapidly convince them, all is well, but if you cant; you have lost the character, because there's no game for him.

Now, this isn't fair on you: you have followed the rules you were given, and you can give elaborate reasons why your are following those rules. It would have been better if you knew in advance that the other players needed you to play something closer to the baseline.

The problem, though, is that beneath the rules you have been given is this unspoken rule that the the other players really do need to want your character around, and currently they don't. It doesn't matter if he fits inside the rulees. The other players don't enjoy him...and that means you are going to lose him one way or the other.

Ah D&D and the importance of alignment. I know we should stay focused, but I wanted to share one more alignment story.

Steve may hold the famed postion of greated crisis in our troupe (Fireball to the Face- Saving Throw or No Saving Throw?), but I hold the title to the second greatest crisis.

We agreed there were elemental planes and these planes included both good and evil. We also agreed that alignment was at the core of a character, it was a description of who they are in a fundamental sense, a part of their soul if you will. That is, we established that alignment was clearly not arbitrary or relative element of a character. Given these in-game "facts", I argued it wasn't evil for a lawful good character to kill goblin babies because they were aligned to evil. I was preventing evil from spreading in the world. One could say I was doing a 'good' thing.

Do *I* think killing babies is "good"? Hell no! But in the context of the game we built, I thought my characters actions were consistent and not a breach of alignment.

PLEASE lets not discuss this here or again. I will say, voices were raised, books were thrown, and select group of players got together and said we need to try a different game. I mentioned that I had this game on my shelf about 'super powerful wizards'. I remember saying, "you don't have to have alignments and characters don't have to be balanced!"

And so started the Nurakrah Saga, our 15 year old 4 different edition campaign. While I hate that we rarely play anything but Ars Magica, our campaign is a testament to the long standing friendship between the members of our troupe and it would be inappropriate complain given the number, depth, and richness of the stories we've told together.

Chuck

Mark Lawford wrote in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=752.1:
//If it was done knowingly (if the player acknowledged the flaw and played to it and allowed the room for growth) this would be fun but because the player is unable to see things from the viewpoint of the other players/characters it is causing difficulty.//
and
//If the player (not the character) says "destroying memories (one of his favoured magical abilities) isn't an offensive action", ...//.

You wrote above: //... I DO NOT share the same belief as my character.//
In that case I congratulate you and apologize. Please understand that I had only your SG's word on this issue before.

You also wrote in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=752.16:
//>> If the character thinks that destroying memories isn't evil or wrong, let him see how that maight affect others. SHow the devastation when a father forgets his family. When a priest forgets to give mass. When a soldier forgets to do his job. See what happens then.

As the player who controls the character, he wouldn't do any of thise things.//

So it appears that the impression you gave to your SG and - perhaps - your fellow players, namely that you yourself considered erasing memories inoffensive, is wrong. If you talk to them in person and confirm this, the main issue should be out of the way. What remains is an in-game in-character issue of ruffled feathers between player magi - which by distinguishing between character and player viewpoints you certainly will sort out together.

Kind regards,

Berengar

"//You might also ask yourself why you feel it is important that this character (or the player) acknowledges this flaw? Because until you understand your own motivations you aren't going to be terribly good at resolving the situation.//

This is the crucial point. As far as the player is concerned his characters actions do not display a disrespect for those around him. Those around him however feel differently. If the player was knowingly playing the character while also acknowledging the flawed and egregious nature of the character there'd be no problem. But, because he can't see the flaw he sees any comeback for his actions as unfair as he was simply playing in character and adhering to his moral code."

===
Having reviewed the players comments above I have the following to say:

What I think you and your players are responding to is the fact the "ethics" the player has created are designed (likely unintentionally) to be "gotten around." It is all negative. He shall NOT do this, that and the other thing. It is also based on ambiguity as the word "harm" is not clear in context. Harm in the Hippocratic oath has a clear meaning...harm as used by this player does not.

It is far from a higher ethical statement (at least in my view), and it is rubbing you all the wrong way (much the way the Aes Seadi in the wheel of time would rub anyone the wrong way since their oath doesn't mean what it is intended to mean and they get around it easily enough...). There are clearly no limits on the actions of the player here, again I suspect the player thinks there is but realistically with such a wishy washy set of structures you can do what you like (and he clearly is). Like the point a non-combantant/pacifist is perfectly willing to kill fae and dragons (and loot thier valuable vis) because they are "un-natural"...true they are un-natural in the real world but they are "natural" in ArM. He also rates angles as 1, but seems to not acknowledge the church...which makes him a heretic. There is not a lot about this characters that is medievel beyond the vegatarianism (which was basically common throughout most of human history...see the diet of the average peasent, typical roman citizen, typical greek citizen, etc) and I am thinking this is also being reacted against.

The 3rd law of robotics is used...and anyone who has read Asimov knows there are ways around it.

Basically sit down with the player and tighten up the ethics a LOT. Get him to formulate his ethics in a positive sense "My character will" rather than "My character will NOT" and both of you need to understand that in the moral hierarchy doing something because it is the right thing to do ranks higher than obeying rules. Also he should avoid anything resembling "The Ends Justify The Means."

Also why is this character a non-combatent? Why is he into plain food? The answers to these questions will help define the character more.

If the player is unwilling to do this, then ask him to make a new and different character.

You have already stated you do not enjoy the character, the other players apparently also do not enjoy the character, so if all else fails get rid of the character. Otherwise you will be getting rid of the player.

This is something for the player to think on as well.

Again this is just what I would do to retify the situation based on what you have said and what the player has said, your milage will defintly vary.

You write:

"There are clearly no limits on the actions of the player here, again I suspect the player thinks there is but realistically with such a wishy washy set of structures you can do what you like (and he clearly is)."

"Basically sit down with the player and tighten up the ethics a LOT"

Why should a PC be compelled to have a tight ethical code. I observe that ethical frameworks that can be used to justify what the person wants to do are not that uncommon in the real world; why not a game?

If the other PCs find the character so obnoxious that they decide to throw him out of the covenant, roleplay it out. Under that threat maybe the character will moderate his behaviour; this is up to the player. Imo the character's views do not need to be re-written, but the consequences of his actions should be played out.

Imo a player should allow his roleplaying character to adapt their views and behaviour to the situation they are in; to learn and develop like real world people do. Too often I have seen PCs head-butt the game world to destruction; unfun and often unreal. However, this ideally should happen in game.

Regards

- David W

Right. Job done.

While email gives a great freedom to think up various analagies and examples, there's nothing like talking.

The most important thing in a game is for the players to enjoy it. For any storyguide who chances upon this thread: get to the heart of the problem early.

If the storyguide agrees to a character then the storyguide needs to keep a check that the character works as expected. If not, get in there and work with the player.

As a player, remember that there is a responsibility to the other players (including the storyguide). I think it's probably good to question now and then whether everybody is enjoying the character and take things from there.

Hopefully, that's what we've done now.

I appreciate the range of responses. I think the case is now closed.

>> Does he defile the corpses afterward, well yes, but medical students have done that for many centuries, using a sort of greater good argument.

In fact, mostly no. He is highly perceptive and is good a telling where there are auras or vis. If he descovers there is vis in a corpse He casts 'Gather the Essence of the Beast" to concentrate the Vis into a single hair.

He then takes that hair. You local barber or undertaker does far more boldily mutilation.

However, one of my fellow players descriped it as "Trophy Taking", I thought trophy taking was far more extreme, and generally refered to soldiers removing sexual organs from their victims.

Keith

>> If there is no reason for the benifactor to know of your wrong doings (this one or others- real or imagined) then the benifactor has no basis for using these actions as a basis for rewarding or punishing you.
If the benifactor has knowledge of wrong doings, (real or imagined- right or wrong), they have a basis for rewarding or punishing your character. If Mark can find a "legitimate" reason for the *character* to reward/punish your character I would accept it as the way it is.

I have agreed for my character to accept a curse as punishment (which was in the scenario), but Mark then agreed it wouldn't be fair, so it's not an issue

>>If Mark is trying to punish your character for not agreeing with his world view, then the lot of you need to discuss this out of character.

Now here is an ongoing issue. One or Marks arguments, is as far as I can tell, "Play your character to the Medieval Paradigm".

But in my opinion, this is flawed on several levels:

1. The Medieval Paradigm is an idealised view written by a small section of society who had a vested interest in the status quo (Monks & Nobles). It is almost certain there where desenters, most obviously Cathers, anbd these should be taken account of on the game.

2. IMHO, almost all Magi where outsiders to society, and generally disapproved of by society, but feared by society.

My character is an Aesclepaid (see Mysteries 4th Ed.). His ethics are an extreme version of that.

"Why should a PC be compelled to have a tight ethical code. I observe that ethical frameworks that can be used to justify what the person wants to do are not that uncommon in the real world; why not a game?"

Frankly a player can do whatever they want.

In this case the fact you say one thing and do another means the other players get annoyed. If you use a ethical code as a reason for behaving in a particular manner, one which apparently did not exactly thrill the other players to peices, then it had better be a solid ethical code. Since then while the other players might not like the character they will eventually come to respect that character.

But once it becomes obvious that your "ethical code" is comparable to jello then the tolerance will vanish.

As I said your milage will certainly vary.

I am glad that the situation is resolved aimicably from the sounds of things. That is much better than someone leaving the group.

"//You might also ask yourself why you feel it is important that this character (or the player) acknowledges this flaw? Because until you understand your own motivations you aren't going to be terribly good at resolving the situation.//

>>This is the crucial point. As far as the player is concerned his characters actions do not display a disrespect for those around him. Those around him however feel differently. If the player was knowingly playing the character while also acknowledging the flawed and egregious nature of the character there'd be no problem. But, because he can't see the flaw he sees any comeback for his actions as unfair as he was simply playing in character and adhering to his moral code."

>> What I think you and your players are responding to is the fact the "ethics" the player has created are designed (likely unintentionally) to be "gotten around." It is all negative. He shall NOT do this, that and the other thing. It is also based on ambiguity as the word "harm" is not clear in context. Harm in the Hippocratic oath has a clear meaning...harm as used by this player does not.

He is constrained to positive action too. If a sick person came to him and said "Cure me", then he would be forced to use all his powers and resources to do it. Even if it meant burning up his last Corpus Vis.

The Hippocratic Oath is in Mysteries. I didn't write it. It was written thousands of years ago. I just summerise it because I can't be bothered to type it in.

>>It is far from a higher ethical statement (at least in my view), and it is rubbing you all the wrong way (much the way the Aes Seadi in the wheel of time would rub anyone the wrong way since their oath doesn't mean what it is intended to mean and they get around it easily enough...).

Fair statement, my character is rubbing them all up the wrong way.

>> There are clearly no limits on the actions of the player here, again I suspect the player thinks there is but realistically with such a wishy washy set of structures you can do what you like (and he clearly is). Like the point a non-combantant/pacifist is perfectly willing to kill fae and dragons (and loot thier valuable vis) because they are "un-natural"...true they are un-natural in the real world but they are "natural" in ArM. He also rates angles as 1, but seems to not acknowledge the church...which makes him a heretic. There is not a lot about this characters that is medievel beyond the vegatarianism (which was basically common throughout most of human history...see the diet of the average peasent, typical roman citizen, typical greek citizen, etc) and I am thinking this is also being reacted against.

Actually he would not kill Dragons and Fey, but for reasons of good taste rather than ethics. You seem to be missing the point here. Camelio (the name of my character) has a set of ethics defined by respect for natural life. He has developed these because he is a doctor. To say "Are, but he doesn't teach poor infants to read, or take widows on trips to the seaside, or what about the fairies", in no way detracts from his ethics as a doctor"

>> The 3rd law of robotics is used...and anyone who has read Asimov knows there are ways around it.

Please tell me?

>>Basically sit down with the player and tighten up the ethics a LOT. Get him to formulate his ethics in a positive sense "My character will" rather than "My character will NOT" and both of you need to understand that in the moral hierarchy doing something because it is the right thing to do ranks higher than obeying rules. Also he should avoid anything resembling "The Ends Justify The Means."

It is my suggestion that every significant character in the Saga should define his moral agenda, and be expected to conform to it.

>> Also why is this character a non-combatent? Why is he into plain food? The answers to these questions will help define the character more.

Because he respects natural sentient life.

>> If the player is unwilling to do this, then ask him to make a new and different character.

>> You have already stated you do not enjoy the character, the other players apparently also do not enjoy the character, so if all else fails get rid of the character. Otherwise you will be getting rid of the player.

I have got to say there is a little bit of group psycholgy going on here. Quite a lot, several of the other players role their eye's and start moaning about Camelio doing something stupid, but sometimes he does the right thing. Two cases in point:

1. Camelio realised that a monk was a demon in disguise. So he casts "Encase in Ice" on the Demon. Huge amounts of moaning and rolling of eyes (from the other players who I offend), then, when it is revealed it is a demon, they stop moaning and it is never mentioned that in fact he did the right thing.

2. A second time, when after repeated visits from a noble whose life Camelio has saved, Camelio realises his "Change Visage" spell (I can't remember the name, is not holding up, he tells the noble he is a Magi. Again, a wave of moaning and rolling of eyes then entails, until MarkL the story guide reveals that he had indeed been rumbled.

I could go on, but trust me, there is definately a degree on "Come on Troop, lets get the weakest Monkey" going on within the group dynamic of the game here.

>> This is something for the player to think on as well. Again this is just what I would do to retify the situation based on what you have said and what the player has said, your milage will defintly vary.

>> Why should a PC be compelled to have a tight ethical code. I observe that ethical frameworks that can be used to justify what the person wants to do are not that uncommon in the real world; why not a game?

Thank you. I can only do my best. IMHO, and ethical code cannot capture every situation perfectly. That is why there are loopholes in the law.

>>If the other PCs find the character so obnoxious that they decide to throw him out of the covenant, roleplay it out. Under that threat maybe the character will moderate his behaviour; this is up to the player. Imo the character's views do not need to be re-written, but the consequences of his actions should be played out.

Great idea! Are you reading this Mark?

>> Imo a player should allow his roleplaying character to adapt their views and behaviour to the situation they are in; to learn and develop like real world people do. Too often I have seen PCs head-butt the game world to destruction; unfun and often unreal. However, this ideally should happen in game.

As I have said this; "Give Camelio what is coming to him!" If he cures an old nobleman, then have the son who was about to succeed him report him to the Quesitors for intefering with mundane politics. If he cures the poor, have the monks at the local hospital complain he is infringing on their work. The list could go on!

> However, one of my fellow players descriped it as "Trophy Taking",
> I thought trophy taking was far more extreme, and generally refered
> to soldiers removing sexual organs from their victims.

Well, I've seen it used to describe souvineering by serial killers...basically if you don't use it to fetishistically relive the incident, it isn't a trophy.

///>>If the other PCs find the character so obnoxious that they decide to throw him out of the covenant, roleplay it out. Under that threat maybe the character will moderate his behaviour; this is up to the player. Imo the character's views do not need to be re-written, but the consequences of his actions should be played out.

Great idea! Are you reading this Mark?////

We actually did this in our campaign. It was sort of difficult to do, but it established a precident in our campaign that I enjoy.

Essentially one of our members returned from a long absence and wanted to play a Bjornear. None of us have a problem with the Bjornear, but all of our characters disliked the Bjornear. I warned the player that it may be difficult or impossible to have the maga join our covenant.

When she petitioned for membership, the magi laughed at her and said HELL NO!. I thought the player would make more attempts to join and the troupe would back down. 'Reluctantly' the characters would agree, because as players we know this is the new character. It didn't happen. The players wouldn't budge, and the character couldn't join the covenant.

We agreed the player would make a new character that wasn't Bjornear. I was slightly irriated that we as players would be so unfriendly and I thought what to do? I had the Bjornear character petition Crintera for membership and she recieved it. She went on to spread the word across the Order via House Bjornear's Domus Magus that we were unfriendly to Bjornear. Later this Maga came to teach one of the children of our Magi who had a HeartBeast. This child of our covenant, came to hate our covenant because of our prejudice against Bjornear. It truely became an generational dispute that we inititated simply because we kicked out a character.

While difficult to do, because players can take the snub personally, such actions can be the source of long term stories of a very personal and vindictive nature.

Since then, any character that is rejected by the troupe becomes a reoccuring NPC that is bound it cross paths with our covenant over and over again. All of these NPC's have been the source of adventures, some as allies, some as enemies.

Chuck

> Further, this code forms part of a �Delusion� minor flaw, because pacifistic veganism is so out of place in Medieval Europe

In 1200 the Provencal Tribunal is crawling with them. Though the Cathar perfect aren't completely vegan as they do eat fish (which have no souls, since they are produced by spontaneous generation and not by sins of the flesh). The cult was active in other parts of Europe too, so most people will simply assume your character is a heretic.

Thus you can expect to be shunned until about 1209, at which point people will start gathering kindling.

//Thus you can expect to be shunned until about 1209, at which point people will start gathering kindling.//

Not quite. Both nonviolence and fasting were also the ideal of monks and the mark of many medieval saints. Both became especially important again once the church had to react to cathar challenges.
So it all depends on how Camelio is 'sold' by his sodales and custodes to the folk around the covenant.

Lets take, as an example related to Camelio's covenant site, the Dominican friar Pietro da Verona, also known as Saint Petrus Martyr (1205-1252). See http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintp23.htm and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11773d.htm for a rough overview.
His main feat, often distinguishing him on paintings, is writing the Credo with his own blood while being chopped in the head with a cleaver by furious heretics. So much for pacifism.
For all Dominicans continuous fasting was obligatory from 14th of September till Easter (so for roughly half a year), and there were enough fasting days in the other half of the year as well. See e. g. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm (3). Certainly nobody would object to a friar fasting all year through.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> So it all depends on how Camelio is 'sold' by his sodales and custodes to the folk around the covenant.

Camelio is his Mage name (his mundane name is Roberto di Verona) because much of his magic is used to blend into the background like a Camelion ("Veil of Invisibilty" and "Disguise of the New Visage"). He also has the "Gentle Gift" virtue.

This allows him to have opinions, views and practices that are blatently heretical, but is able to hide them.

As an aside, the opinion I hold about Ars Magica is that most magi are outside of society rather than in it. Perhaps a Jerbiton court wizard is the exception, but if the Hermetic code about interfering with mandanes was to be applied rigorously, then such a mage should be in hot soup with the order. From the mundane side, Leviticus 19: 26 "You shall not eat any meat with the blood still in it; neither shall you use enchantments, nor practice sorcery", if interpreted strictly would prohibit the practice of magic.

Besides, my mage is a Criamon, and you can't get more heretical than to prefer final twighlight to Heaven. So although a Jerbiton might get away with expounding his or her views in public, but a Criamon would stand no chance.

//... So although a Jerbiton might get away with expounding his or her views in public, but a Criamon would stand no chance.//

Yep, as I said: for the average Criamon his sodales and especially custodes have to take care of the public relations.

So he better keeps them happy ...

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> Yep, as I said: for the average Criamon his sodales and especially >> >>custodes have to take care of the public relations.

>>So he better keeps them happy ...

I would rather just hide the fact that he is a mage to mundane society.

//I could go on, but trust me, there is definately a degree on "Come on Troop, lets get the weakest Monkey" going on within the group dynamic of the game here.//

I certainly think that's a bit harsh. That's not the case in or out of game as far as I know.

The disagreement wasn't about whether Camelio the character was acting within his "ethics" or not, rather whether the things he was doing (and the way these things are done) were seen as reasonable by other characters. If they're not seen as reasonable or reasonably done, then it is for the characters to get upset about them.

As we've already agreed, a surgeon might save ten lives a week, a day even, but still be an arse to work with.

If a character is frustrating as hell the player can't just assume there's no comeback because the character's actions were within his ethical code.

//
>>If the other PCs find the character so obnoxious that they decide to throw him out of the covenant, roleplay it out. Under that threat maybe the character will moderate his behaviour; this is up to the player. Imo the character's views do not need to be re-written, but the consequences of his actions should be played out.

Great idea! Are you reading this Mark?
//

Ha ha. Yes indeed. I think we already did this after that incident with the Cardinal. They banished Camelio from Verona for a year. That was a source of OOG hassle too as I remember.

//

..."Give Camelio what is coming to him!" If he cures an old nobleman, then have the son who was about to succeed him report him to the Quesitors for intefering with mundane politics. If he cures the poor, have the monks at the local hospital complain he is infringing on their work. The list could go on!

//

Absolutely. I'd love to. As for the specifics, what does Giulio Menacossa know about Quaesitores? Well, at the moment...

//
When she petitioned for membership, the magi laughed at her and said HELL NO!. I thought the player would make more attempts to join and the troupe would back down. 'Reluctantly' the characters would agree, because as players we know this is the new character. It didn't happen. The players wouldn't budge, and the character couldn't join the covenant.
//

It's never easy is it? On the one hand, the players love being true to the characters they've chosen to play but on the other they should also take into account what the other players want to do and play.

I think that's why, in some sagas I've played in players tend to put up with a lot of gubbins from one player because of the meta-game aspect. It's inescapable.

>> I certainly think that's a bit harsh. That's not the case in or out of game as far as I know.The disagreement wasn't about whether Camelio the character was acting within his "ethics" or not, rather whether the things he was doing (and the way these things are done) were seen as reasonable by other characters. If they're not seen as reasonable or reasonably done, then it is for the characters to get upset about them.

My comments you think are harsh refer to:

1. Camelio realised that a monk was a demon in disguise. So he casts "Encase in Ice" on the Demon. Huge amounts of moaning and rolling of eyes (from the other players who I offend), then, when it is revealed it is a demon, they stop moaning and it is never mentioned that in fact he did the right thing.

2. A second time, when after repeated visits from a noble whose life Camelio has saved, Camelio realises his "Change Visage" spell (I can't remember the name, is not holding up, he tells the noble he is a Magi. Again, a wave of moaning and rolling of eyes then entails, until MarkL the story guide reveals that he had indeed been rumbled.

Not Camelio collecting Vis from the dead.

Don't you remember these incidents, or the adverse reactions?

>> Ha ha. Yes indeed. I think we already did this after that incident with the Cardinal. They banished Camelio from Verona for a year. That was a source of OOG hassle too as I remember.

The Cardinal thing has been milked so much I could hardly forget it, but I don't remember the OOG.

//
My comments you think are harsh refer to:

1. Camelio realised that a monk was a demon in disguise. So he casts "Encase in Ice" on the Demon. Huge amounts of moaning and rolling of eyes (from the other players who I offend), then, when it is revealed it is a demon, they stop moaning and it is never mentioned that in fact he did the right thing.

2. A second time, when after repeated visits from a noble whose life Camelio has saved, Camelio realises his "Change Visage" spell (I can't remember the name, is not holding up, he tells the noble he is a Magi. Again, a wave of moaning and rolling of eyes then entails, until MarkL the story guide reveals that he had indeed been rumbled.

Not Camelio collecting Vis from the dead.

Don't you remember these incidents, or the adverse reactions?
//

The comments I thought were harsh were those about the "monkey troop".

Of course I remember the incidents you refer to. They were fun little stories. Camelio got to be proved right both times and the other characters decided to acknowledge that in whatever style best suited their mood - in this case saying nothing about them being wrong.

//
The Cardinal thing has been milked so much I could hardly forget it, but I don't remember the OOG.
//

There were protracted "discussions" about whether it was right or wrong for Camelio to drop his invisibility spell in front of the Cardinal and with beaming grin request "indulgences" from him.

Then there were protracted "discussions" about whether it was right for the other characters to banish Camelio from Verona for a year.

But that's all just an amusing footnote in the history of our saga.

//They were fun little stories. Camelio got to be proved right both times and the other characters decided to acknowledge that in whatever style best suited their mood - in this case saying nothing about them being wrong.///

My brother has a master's degree in playing JERK'S. But he plays handy Jerks.

Given that Ars caters to an ensemble cast, as long as everyone gets their amount of air time we seem to be ok with his characters (or any of the other jerks in our campaign). So that means my brothers characters are often involved in eye rolling, guy's moaning, and hair pulling, but as long as he isn't a scene hog (running to the libary and playing four hours of pointless research, or stealing from whoever and detailing the entire incident in the market, ect) it's ok.

In our last session there was a scroll and the scroll had 'the solution' to the adventure. But scroll also had a curse on it, read it and get cursed. We knew this because one character read it and told us and wanted to protect the rest of us from the curse.

My brothers character steals the scroll because the adventure is going know where. He reads it to find the solution.

Now, we play old school, and he has to read it OUT LOUD, so in theory everyone that hears him read the scroll is cursed. Where does he read it? In the mess hall at the Covenant! In theory he's cursing half the covenant along with himself. He DIDN'T CARE!

Now it turns out the first player read the scroll wrong, there was NO CURSE. But there was a lot of in character yelling because my brother was so quick and willing to put so many people in harms way. Despite this, he was handy becoming key to solving the adventure.

And what did he get for being 'right'?

Absolutely nothing. In fact probably more people hate him now because he *might* have cursed them. Such is the fate of characters with 'personality'.

Chuck

I've been reading along here...

All I can add to the discussion is be sure to keep talking, keep the lines of communication open, and keep talking. Lack of communication between all parties involved can wreck things in ways few can imagine.

Having been on the receiving end of differences in ethics between magi, and little to no (or very vague/obscure) communication, it has caused problems that almost brought our ongoing saga to a very abrupt and sudden halt.

So keep talking, and don't make it vague. Be clear, with no uncertainties.

Steve

//I would rather just hide the fact that he is a mage to mundane society.//

If he's also a pacifist and a vegan, *and* wishes to do without help from his sodales and custodes for the right theological interpretation of this to the rest of the world, he better hide from the world completely.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> In 1200 the Provencal Tribunal is crawling with them. Though the >>Cathar perfect aren't completely vegan as they do eat fish (which have >>no souls, since they are produced by spontaneous generation and not by >>sins of the flesh). The cult was active in other parts of Europe too, >>so most people will simply assume your character is a heretic.

Thanks, this is really usefull stuff. What is interesting as that any fisherman could tell that fishes have eggs, and so were not produced by spontaneous generation.

Fish being produced produced by spontaneous generation was probably written by some Monk who would rather draw conclusion from dogma, rather than observation.

It happens with scientists today, apparently, when they first postulated that the Mars meteorite containd a fossilised bacterium, the reaction was well is's a 1000 times too small. Then they started looking for bacteria that size on Earth, and found it!

This is my problem with the 'Medieval Paradigm', there were craftsmen who must have had a more accurate world view than the monks who wrote it.

Anyway, based on your suggestion, I shall modify Camelio's heirarchy of ethics, to a heirarchy based on souls.

It now becomes

Hierarchy of Souls (1 – highest Value to 9 – lowest):

Creatures with Souls

1. Angels – Perfect Souls
2. Wise men – Souls attaining Wisdom - This includes all magi, and philosophers (but not people who hold beliefs on faith), Healers.
3. Men – Ignorant Souls.
4. Animals – Animal Souls
5. Butchers – Souls who kill Animals, Souls who need to mend there ways – tolerated and where safe, persuaded to repent and give up butchery.
6. Murderers – Souls who kill (or who intend to kill) 1 to 3 - Souls in danger of damnation - to be shunned if safe to do so, or where safe, persuaded to repent and give up killing.

Creatures without Souls

7. Harmless Creatures without Souls (Dragons, Fairies, Fish, etc) – Whilst of no value (i.e., killing a fairies is not murder), Camelio might like them on a personal level.
8. Unfriendly Creatures without Souls (Dragons, Fairies, Man killing animals etc) – Of no value (i.e., killing a fairies is not murder), and should be killed, or otherwise made safe, if possible.

Creatures with Evil Souls

9. Creature with unredeemable Souls - Demons – Hated and should be killed, or otherwise made safe, if possible.

Camelio’s Ethics

Do not harm a creature with a soul, or encourage anyone else to harm a creature with a soul, nor by inaction allow a creature with a soul to be harmed, except to save a creature with a higher Soul

Hierarchy of Creatures with Souls (1 – highest Value to 10 – lowest):

Camelio’s Oath: The Hippocratic Oath: a literal translation

1. I swear by Apollo Physician, and by Asclepius, and by Hygeia, and by Panaceia and by all gods and godesses, making them witnesses, to fulfil, according to my ability and judgement.
2. To regard my teacher in this art equal to my parents; and to share my livelihood in common with him, and, if he is in need, to make a contribution; and to judge his progeny equal to my brothers of the male line; and to teach this art if they require to learn, without fee or covenant;
3. To make a contribution of instruction, and lecture, and all the other learning, to my sons, and to those of my teacher, and to pupils who have signed the covenant and sworn to obey the physician’s law, but to none other.
4. I will use dietary regimes to help the sick according to my ability and judgement and to refrain from harm and injustice.
5. I will not give to anyone a deadly drug though asked, nor will I suggest a plan of such a kind. Similarly I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.
6. But in a pure and holy way I will guard my life and my art.
7. But I will not cut, not even sufferers from stone, but I will give place to workmen who engage in this practice.
8. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will go in to help the sick, being without all intentional injustice and corruption, and all the rest and especially without "works of Aphrodite" upon the bodies both of women and men, both of free and slaves.
9. Whatsoever in the course of attending the sick I see or hear (or even when not attending the sick), concerning the life of men, which ought never be published outside, I will keep silent, considering such things as unutterable.
10. Now if I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may I reap, in my life and art, glory among all men for all time; but if I transgress and swear falsely, the opposite of these things.

Notes of Camelio’s behavior

1. Camelio would not take a gift from the Lady Aldona as she is a murderer who should be shunned if safe to do so.
2. Camelio would take the dying mage instead in the hope of saving his life, despite having to ask Lady Aldona for permission.
3. Camelio will loot corpses for Vis whenever he can as not doing so might endanger the lives of people he might otherwise cure.
4. Camelio is afraid to fight the Lady Aldona as he thinks he will lose the fight and endanger the party, but he will report her to the Quesitors.
5. Camelio will fight others in order to save life, but his method of fighting against valued creatures is non-lethal (mentum spells and ‘encase in ice’)
6. Camelio is in practice, a fish eating vegetarian, but he could eat meat from an animal that died accidentally (in fact he finds the concept of eating meat more distasteful than eating manure). He could also eat unfertilized eggs, or dairy product taken from milk where the calf was not harmed. He could even eat Dragons Heart Soup, or Fairy Princess Hot Pot, but again he would find it distasteful.
7. Camelio would consider a magistrate who condemned a thief to death to be a murder.

//It now becomes

Hierarchy of Souls (1 – highest Value to 9 – lowest):

Creatures with Souls

1. Angels – Perfect Souls
2. Wise men – Souls attaining Wisdom - This includes all magi, and philosophers (but not people who hold beliefs on faith), Healers.
3. Men – Ignorant Souls.
4. Animals – Animal Souls
...//

Be careful to stress to your fellow players that Camelio's use of the term of 'soul' is in no way medieval, and has been made up from whole cloth by you.
Usually 'soul' in ArM means the Thomistic 'rational soul' - which e. g. animals do not have. To find a historical theory of the soul somewhat compatible with your intentions, look for gnostic systems instead.

You might also have Camelio consider who created Angels and Men, and which place in Camelio's hierachy assign to him and his will.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> Be careful to stress to your fellow players that Camelio's use of the >>term of 'soul' is in no way medieval, and has been made up from whole >>cloth by you.

Nope, actually, Camelio's use of Soul is in reaction to the post by Ars Brevis, you might like to re-read the post as it is a good one.

>>To find a historical theory of the soul somewhat compatible with your >>intentions, look for gnostic systems instead.

Camelio is an asclepiad, which is pre-christian, but which is in 'The Mysteries' (Ars Magica 4th Edition).

>> If he's also a pacifist and a vegan, *and* wishes to do without help >> from his sodales and custodes for the right theological >> >>interpretation of this to the rest of the world, he better hide from >>the world completely.

Well this gets us to the heart of the issue. Just because Camelio is a pacifist doen't mean he will sit passively in the lotus position whilst he is being murdered.

He can defend himself by:

1. Going invisible.
2. Disguising himself.
3. Using Perdo Mentum magic, typically concerning memory loss.
4. Using harmless physical magic like "Encase in Ice".

In practice, he can probably defend himself as well as any of his soldales.

The problem I am having is that the use of Perdo Mentum magic is being construed as going against Camelio's pacifistic code. I just can't see it myself.

//>> Be careful to stress to your fellow players that Camelio's use of the >>term of 'soul' is in no way medieval, and has been made up from whole >>cloth by you.

Nope, actually, Camelio's use of Soul is in reaction to the post by Ars Brevis, you might like to re-read the post as it is a good one.

>>To find a historical theory of the soul somewhat compatible with your >>intentions, look for gnostic systems instead.

Camelio is an asclepiad, which is pre-christian, but which is in 'The Mysteries' (Ars Magica 4th Edition).//

I am well aware of ArsBrevis' post. I also answered it. But - unless you just wish Camelio to embrace Catharism - it has little to do with your definition of 'soul' in Camelio's 'ethics', and the necessity of you explaining this definition to your fellow players.
There is no theory of the soul attached to the ancient cult of Asclepios, on which the ArM4 Asclepiads claim to be based. From the Mysteries, I would anyway expect most Asclepiads to subscribe to Aristotle's theory on the subject, which is also at the basis of Thomas Aquinas' theory.

//>> If he's also a pacifist and a vegan, *and* wishes to do without help >> from his sodales and custodes for the right theological >> >>interpretation of this to the rest of the world, he better hide from >>the world completely.

Well this gets us to the heart of the issue. Just because Camelio is a pacifist doen't mean he will sit passively in the lotus position whilst he is being murdered.

He can defend himself by:

...//

Nothing of this will help him much once the inquisition is after him. And in a campaign set in 13th century Northern Italy - the time and place of the suppression of the Pataria - they will be after him sooner or later if his unfiltered opinions become known. Camelio needs friends to prevent this, and should definitely proceed to get them in time - unless of course he wants to remove himself completely from the mundane world. Come to think of it: perhaps he can find those urgently needed friends if he promises to stay out of any mundane affairs? ;-)

Kind regards,

Berengar

Hi, firstly what is this "suppression of the Pataria"? It seems I've overlooked something I could throw at the players...

Secondly, as we play in a city covenant with fairly good relations with some prominent city folk, the "interfering" is pretty widespread and not worried about so much.

The only thing that was causing an issue was simply whether Camelio's actions did or were likely or not to annoy his companions. As I've discussed with Keith, he was fighting his corner and saying "but those actions didn't break his code of ethics" and we were saying "so what? they were still annoying".

I think, given the importance that these ethics are playing in the development of the character it will be worth looking at what stories I can come up with to hold those up in contrast to the consensus.

It's always more rewarding to write stories around the characters than to just drop them into a randome encounter.

>> There is no theory of the soul attached to the ancient cult of Asclepios, on which the ArM4 Asclepiads claim to be based. From the Mysteries,

I know that. But the Ascelpiads lived in a world without dragons, demons and fairies interposing themselves in everyday life.

So I need to accommodate them, and I happen to think the Ars Brevis concept of soul (as used by the Cathars and probably many other people in 12th Century Europe), is a good way of doing this.

>>> I would anyway expect most Asclepiads to subscribe to Aristotle's theory on the subject, which is also at the basis of Thomas Aquinas' theory.

Unless Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle, or indeed yourself, have better ideas on how to modify the hippocratic Oath to accommodate fairies, I think I'll stick with what I have thanks.

Edited 10/30/2005 2:49 pm ET by EasyPeasy

>> The disagreement wasn't about whether Camelio the character was acting within his "ethics" or not,

Then I am sorry, it is entirely my mistake. I thought charge 'Hypocrit' had been hurled at Camelio loudly and repeatedly. Clearly I am wrong.

No Camelio is not a Saint. He doesn't care about educating the masses, or give work to the unemployed. He is just a pacifist doctor who will place his Hippocratic Oath above relatively minor violations of 'Interfering with mundanes'.

//Hi, firstly what is this "suppression of the Pataria"? It seems I've overlooked something I could throw at the players...//

The Pataria started as a popular political movement in the cities of northern Italy, whose origins go back to Milan in the 1050s. It was first supported by pope Alexander II and lead to the rule of Milan by the Diaconus Ariald and Erlembald Cotta until about 1075.

Among the social strati supporting this first Pataria, craftsmen, small traders and poorer citizens, in the 12th century the Cathars successfully spread their teachings, but - differently from Occitania - never reached the nobility or higher clergy: the first Cathar bishop of Milan is told to have been a gravedigger. Nevertheless the extent of the heresy must have been significant: Sacconi, a former perfectus turned inquisitor around 1250 guessed at 2500 perfecti in northern Italy. A crusade against these urban heretics was not feasible, as it would have affected all Lombardy and alienated it from the Church. So most cities of northern Italy provided refuge for Occitanian Cathars throughout the 13th century.

The imperial laws against heretics from 1232 and the institution of the papal inquisition 1233 were also directed against these heretics in northern Italy - called by their persecutors Manicheans following a byzantine usage with respect to the Bogomils. Both laws were however contested and not applied by many Comuni, who considered them interference with their rights and privileges. If the pope laid the Interdict on a city to force its cooperation with the inquisition, this often strengthened the Cathars within, as they continued to administer their sacraments while the unattended catholics had to fear for their eternal salvation.
Still the papal inquisition refined its methods and 'made its bones' while persecuting 'Manicheans' in the middle of the all-out war between pope and emperor. It was supported mainly by the mendicant orders and secular clergy, and exploited factional or social conflicts within the cities to their advantage. The real, unembellished Pietro da Verona, inquisitor, even took part in a civil war in Florence, victoriously leading his followers against troops of the nobility.

In Verona the inquisition had its great breakthrough in 1278, when it brought the Ghibelline podestá on its side and had the imperial laws from 1232 integrated into the city's constitution. Soon afterwards the fortress Sirmione of the Cathar bishopric of Desenzano was taken and 166 heretics burned in the Arena di Verona: an event often compared to the fall of Montségur in Occitania.

//Secondly, as we play in a city covenant with fairly good relations with some prominent city folk, the "interfering" is pretty widespread and not worried about so much.//
I wasn't so much concerned with Camelio violating his oath by 'interfering with mundanes', but with him getting into serious trouble with the inquisition or the bishop of Verona if his ideas and antics became known.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//... and I happen to think the Ars Brevis concept of soul (as used by the Cathars and probably many other people in 12th Century Europe), is a good way of doing this.//

Just that ArsBrevis never wrote up any concept of soul on this thread, apart from stating a - dubious - reason for allowing fish to be eaten by perfecti. So basically you made up 'soul' from whole cloth all by yourself, and have to respond for that to your troupe, not to me.

The concept of soul as used by Cathars is a very tricky issue because:
(a) as far as we know the Cathars took up philosophy and theology only reluctantly and after 1200,
(b) we have accounts on Cathar teachings only by their persecutors, whose perspective was conditioned not only by enmity, but also by the treatment of ancient heresies like 'manicheism' at the universities.

//dragons, demons and fairies interposing themselves in everyday life.

So I need to accommodate them//
Fantastic beasts and faeries were already in the 13th century easily enough integrated with standard Thomism, and have there as little 'rational soul' as animals. This concept has even found its way into medieval folk tales like the one of Melusine or Undine. Demons have their place in Thomism, too, of course.

//...how to modify the hippocratic Oath to accommodate fairies//
I don't see the slightest need for this.

Kind regards,

Berengar

You said: Just that ArsBrevis never wrote up any concept of soul on this thread, apart from stating a - dubious - reason for allowing fish to be eaten by perfecti. So basically you made up 'soul' from whole cloth all by yourself, and have to respond for that to your troupe, not to me.

Ars Brevis said: Though the Cathar perfect aren't completely vegan as they do eat fish (which have no souls, since they are produced by spontaneous generation and not by sins of the flesh).

I say: If an animal is not produced by spontaneous generation, that implies it has a soul. Am I making an implication from Ars Brevis's post? Or am I making it up the whole cloth myself?

As far as I was aware, fairies do not have souls in Ars Magica, (although I seem to remember reading a traditional story where a fairy Giant hid his soul in an egg...but let's not complicate things).

>> /...how to modify the hippocratic Oath to accommodate fairies//
>>I don't see the slightest need for this.

Well the need is does the hippocratic Oath cover fairies or not? As far as Camelio is concerned it does not, so his ethics have to explain why not.

>> Fantastic beasts and faeries were already in the 13th century easily enough integrated with standard Thomism, and have there as little 'rational soul' as animals

So Thomas Aquinas stated that dragons and fairies have souls?

>> have to respond for that to your troupe, not to me.

My character was approved twice. Once, after being generated in 4th edition, and again when converted to 5th. His behaviour should not come as any great shock to anyone.

//Ars Brevis said: Though the Cathar perfect aren't completely vegan as they do eat fish (which have no souls, since they are produced by spontaneous generation and not by sins of the flesh).

I say: If an animal is not produced by spontaneous generation, that implies it has a soul. Am I making an implication from Ars Brevis's post? Or am I making it up the whole cloth myself?//

Yes, as you are attempting to make a system out of a passing - and dubious - statement.

//>> Fantastic beasts and faeries were already in the 13th century easily enough integrated with standard Thomism, and have there as little 'rational soul' as animals

So Thomas Aquinas stated that dragons and fairies have souls?//

No, since animals have no 'rational souls' in Thomism, as I already told you in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=752.56. ArM animals only have souls in your little private system.

//My character was approved twice. Once, after being generated in 4th edition, and again when converted to 5th. His behaviour should not come as any great shock to anyone.//

You still have to respond for Camelio's newly found ideas of 'soul' to the troupe.

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> Yes, as you are attempting to make a system out of a passing - and dubious - statement.

Not a system. Just an inference.

>> No, since animals have no 'rational souls' in Thomism, as I already told you in http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlasgames/messages?msg=752.56.

>> ArM animals only have souls in your little private system.

No, I don't have 'a private little system', I was making an inference from what looks to me like an excellent post by Ars Brevis. Can you see the inference or not?

As animals have no souls in ArM (and I can see that in the book), then I will just have to change the system in ethics back again to 'natural sentient creatures'. It just sounds so clunky.

//As animals have no souls in ArM (and I can see that in the book), then ...//
Ok, you got that.

I reckon that you best sort out the rest with your troupe, who are the only people concerned by it.

Kind regards,

Berengar

//
My character was approved twice. Once, after being generated in 4th edition, and again when converted to 5th. His behaviour should not come as any great shock to anyone.
//

You're right, his stats were approved by the troupe. It wasn't his stats that were at issue, only his behaviour. To make matters worse, it was the behaviour that wasn't covered by any of the ethics (mind manipulation etc). But I think we've pretty well talked that through.

Berengar wrote:
<<<
Both nonviolence and fasting were also the ideal of monks and the mark of many medieval saints. Both became especially important again once the church had to react to cathar challenges.
>>>

I would that agree fasting (and asceticism in general) was one of the main ways the church won back hearts and minds. I'm surprised you think nonviolence became more important, though.

Camelio could certainly pretend to be a monk, but this will be less plausible if he exhibits heterodox ideas or behaviour, or mingles with dubious characters, e.g. most magi. His diet could instead be explained as a fast imposed as a penance - or, less elegantly, as a vow he swore after almost dying of food poisoning, or after a poor family in his village died of starvation, or for some other reason.

<<<
Nothing of this will help him much once the inquisition is after him. And in a campaign set in 13th century Northern Italy - the time and place of the suppression of the Pataria - they will be after him sooner or later if his unfiltered opinions become known. Camelio needs friends to prevent this...
>>>

I agree with that, although friends can also be a vulnerability. A magus may be able to escape by striding, but his confederates can be punished for associating with a heretic, especially if they have witnessed any heretical rituals. From 1252 onwards, the Inqusition also has the power to torture any friends they capture (handy story hook, that).

A question to consider is how the Inquisition will relate to the OoH as a whole. I suspect in most sagas the Order will be a hotbed of freethinkers, precisely the kind of miscreants who flourished in 1200 but were mostly eliminated by 1300. However, the OoH is a very difficult and dangerous target, and is also a potential bulwark against external threats (e.g. Mongols) and internal ones (e.g. diabolists). There is plenty of scope for politicking between the magi and this new, militant arm of the Church.

<<<
Just that ArsBrevis never wrote up any concept of soul on this thread, apart from stating a - dubious - reason for allowing fish to be eaten by perfecti...
>>>

I haven't written up a concept of soul, and I don't particularly want to. I don't remember reading any concept of soul in any of the ArM books I've read, either, although there are a few sentences here and there.

As for 'dubious', I admit to making the leap of logic that fish have no souls in Cathar theology, but I think the inference is reasonable. I've read that, like many earlier gnostics, Cathars believed sex was the temptation that seduced souls from heaven; I also read that they told stories of people who remembered past lives as animals, and that fish were allowed because they weren't the product of sex.

<<<
Be careful to stress to your fellow players that Camelio's use of the term of 'soul' is in no way medieval, and has been made up from whole cloth by you.
Usually 'soul' in ArM means the Thomistic 'rational soul' - which e. g. animals do not have. To find a historical theory of the soul somewhat compatible with your intentions, look for gnostic systems instead.
>>>

I was describing - accurately, I hope - a thirteenth-century ida about souls. The Cathars seem to have got most of their theology from the gnostics, probably via the Bogomils. As believers in reincarnation, they may also have been influenced directly by Plato, or possibly by Eastern religions.

You can prove out of game that a horse, for example, has no soul: you can point to p80 of the book, or you can demonstrate that it contradicts the dominant worldview. However, I don't see any way of proving it in game, barring a major breakthrough or Divine revelation. It's true that you can magically create a horse, but that simply raises the question of how you know that magic can't create anything with a soul.

<<<
...The concept of soul as used by Cathars is a very tricky issue because:
(a) as far as we know the Cathars took up philosophy and theology only reluctantly and after 1200,...
>>>

My impression is that the Cathars were keen on both. The Perfect arraigned in Lombers in 1165 put up a very detailed defence of their beliefs, drawing heavily on scripture. The council at St. Felix two years later was also the scene of much theological debate, although its main purpose was to reorganise the Cathar church.

<<<
(b) we have accounts on Cathar teachings only by their persecutors, whose perspective was conditioned not only by enmity, but also by the treatment of ancient heresies like 'manicheism' at the universities.
>>>

There are certainly plenty of polemics and unfriendly chronicles criticising the movement, but I believe most historians consider the Inquisitorial records to be exceptionally thorough and accurate. Several Cathar texts also survive, in whole or part, such as The Book of the Two Principles.

//I'm surprised you think nonviolence became more important, though.//
As the 'official' vitae of 13th century saints show, nonviolence and sacrifice of the own person became very important as ideals. Even aggressive characters like Pietro da Verona or Dominicus were made to fit that canon in their biographies as Saints. I reckon that I do not need to stress the role of the Franciscans in this.

//Camelio could certainly pretend to be a monk, but this will be less plausible if he exhibits heterodox ideas or behaviour, or mingles with dubious characters, e.g. most magi.//
No, he really couldn't pretend to do so, as the lifestyle of a monk was - and is - subject to so many restrictions (obedience to superiors in the monastery, stabilitas loci, mandatory singing of daily service, etc.). If 'sold' right and kept out of the spotlight, he might instead be passed off as a pious layman living in semireclusion - of which there were many at the time. His antics could spoil that any time, of course.

//A question to consider is how the Inquisition will relate to the OoH as a whole. I suspect in most sagas the Order will be a hotbed of freethinkers, precisely the kind of miscreants who flourished in 1200 but were mostly eliminated by 1300. However, the OoH is a very difficult and dangerous target, and is also a potential bulwark against external threats (e.g. Mongols) and internal ones (e.g. diabolists). There is plenty of scope for politicking between the magi and this new, militant arm of the Church.//
An OoH led wisely will probably hide most of its members, its structures and extent from the inquisition.
But the success of the inquisition in northern Italy is in no way assured from its onset, and the Order might be tempted to fight back in the general turmoil of the middle of the century, instead. If the OoH comes to the attention of the inquisition in northern Italy (a decision to take by each SG for her campaign), the result over the 13th century would at least be lots of politics. In that case, survival of the Order beyond 1300 requires an alternate history, though.

//<<<
...The concept of soul as used by Cathars is a very tricky issue because:
(a) as far as we know the Cathars took up philosophy and theology only reluctantly and after 1200,...
>>>

My impression is that the Cathars were keen on both. The Perfect arraigned in Lombers in 1165 put up a very detailed defence of their beliefs, drawing heavily on scripture. The council at St. Felix two years later was also the scene of much theological debate, although its main purpose was to reorganise the Cathar church.//

You didn't get the point here. The 12th century Cathars were very keen on biblical arguments - so on exegesis, not on theology and philosophy. And the medieval theories on souls did not benefit much from exegesis.

With some more time - I'm occupied today - I might give you a short overview on this list of what we know of Cathar teaching about angels (which you appear to call souls).

Kind regards,

Berengar

>> With some more time - I'm occupied today - I might give you a short overview on this list of what we know of Cathar teaching about angels (which you appear to call souls).

I think Angel just means "messenger", but what we think of as Angel in ArM, or indeed Demon, are pure Souls (who could take Corporal form if they wanted to).

Keith