From Exalted Wiki

Courtesy of Michael Goodwin, AKA Nephilpal, originally posted on the White-Wolf Forums and reprinted here with his permission.

Contents 1 The Primary Essay 1.1 Compassion 1.2 Conviction 1.3 Temperance 1.4 Valor 1.5 Conclusion 2 Following Discussion 2.1 First Followup 2.2 Second Followup 2.3 Third Followup 2.4 Fourth Followup 2.5 Fifth Followup 2.6 Sixth Followup 2.7 Seventh Followup 2.8 Eighth Followup 2.9 Ninth Followup 2.10 Tenth Followup 2.11 Eleventh Followup

The Primary Essay

As always, you can't make a system proof against abuse. Like any other rule, the Four Flaws of Perfection depend upon careful Storyteller adjudication to function as intended.

In first edition, perfect defenses required willpower, making them the sort of thing you couldn't reliably rely upon to carry you through anything except emergencies. With the dethroning of persistent defenses from being necessary and overwhelming components of Solar defense strategy (especially in stacked form) to "merely" useful, it was decided that perfect defenses could stand to be bumped up a bit. After all, perfection is the most logical expression of Solar Charms. Moreover, the removal of rolled defenses in favor of DV established a trend to streamline combat to a faster flowing process needing fewer rolls in general, which greater access to perfect defenses enabled.

The challenge, of course, was that perfect defenses run the risk of being boring. Answering every attack with "Nope!" takes the high action stunt-driven combat engine and turns it into a war of attrition. Thus, the perfect defenses needed some counterbalancing flaw that could invalidate or weaken them, but only situationally. Doing so would allow for stunts and tactical considerations on the part of the attacker to take advantage of the flaws, while encouraging the defenders to stunt and act in a manner that minimized the opportunity for the flaws to actually be flaws.

With all of these design considerations in mind, let's break down each of the flaws to look at how they probably ought to be executed, rather than how it is admittedly possible to read them for the purposes of exploiting them.

Compassion

Inherently, compassion is a function of caring about others, rather than about oneself. You don't get to channel your compassion dice to save your own hide when only your own hide is on the line. That's not compassion, that's selfishness. Now, if you're all that stands between Horrible Doom(TM) and the village you have sworn to defend, that's entirely different. Your wellbeing is inherently tied to the wellbeing of others in a subsidiary manner.

Of course, you could be the sort of person that cares about his armor and his sword more than other people, and that's fine. Odds are good that you will be armed and armored and the flaw won't come up often. However, that's the point. It shouldn't come up often. Yet when you are captured and dropped naked into a gladiator pit to fight some warlord's pet demon, well, that's going to be unpleasant for you.

Then you have those saints that love the whole world from its flowers and butterflies to the last dung heap. Good for them! These are the sort of characters that are going to be able to milk the Compassion flaw for all it's worth. However, if that's the kind of character you're playing, then the flaw lies in the limitations of playing such a character. You love the whole world? Prove it! Because if your actions say otherwise, then your Storyteller has every right to tell you that your perfect defense doesn't work at a key moment.

In the end, any reading of the compassion flaw that sounds like twinkish exploitation probably is twinkish exploitation, and any Storyteller worth their salt should be able to tell the difference.

Conviction

The conviction flaw invalidates a perfect defense when your actions directly contradict your Motivation. As you noted, this won't come up much, but that's the point. It shouldn't come up often. If you're rooted in Conviction, then your invulnerability flows from your devotion to your own ideals and causes.

However, step back from the mechanics of Motivation for a moment and look at what the trait actually means in real life terms. Your character's Motivation is his core imperative, the goal he places above all other goals. A lot of people have "Be happy!" as their broad Motivation. Others are more specific, like "Write a novel," or "Find true love." But as common as those sorts of open-ended Motivations are, how many people sabotage themselves on a daily basis? How many people who crave happiness take actions that only create unhappiness for themselves? Do you suppose most alcoholics have a Motivation summed up as "Throw my life down the drain, ruining my career and alienating all my friends and family until I'm a broken and bitter wreck" or would it be fairer to say that they really want happiness, but their actions subvert that goal?

Now, you might come back and say that real-world propensity for psychological issues isn't exactly the kind of fun epic play that Exalted is all about, but stop and consider the kinds of mythic internal conflicts that a Solar might run into. Pretend you're Panther, a paragon of righteousness who intends to go forth and kick much ass in the name of the Unconquered Sun. Let's pretend for a moment that your Motivation is worded as "Restore righteousness to the world by any means necessary." That's a pretty broad Motivation, wouldn't you say? You'd have to work pretty hard to do anything that would invalidate your perfect defenses, right? Well, what happens when you limit break and you happen to have Overindulgence as your Virtue flaw. Suddenly, you're actively opposing what you stand for by being the very kind of hedonistic jerk you preach against. Perfect defenses based on Conviction? Sorry, not while you're acting like that!

Then again, Limit Breaks don't happen very often, and part of the wording of the Conviction Flaw is that it might come up when an enemy carefully arranges a situation to force you to act against yourself. So let's look at that part of it for a moment. You're still Panther, and you find yourself in the rather unenviable position of fighting Mr. Chejop Kejak. You say "Sidereal murderer! I will avenge my ancient brethren that you unrighteously overthrew!" That's a fairly Panther-ish thing to say. But then Kejak comes back with a lengthy monologue: "Oh mighty and holy Lawgiver, as you would claim yourself, do not speak to me of righteousness, you whose kind wore the skins of babies for their softness and whose floating citadels terrorized the world until all bowed before your tyranny! Do not speak to me of righteousness at any cost, I who diminished the very glories of the world that I might save it from the eternal darkness of your kind's excesses! You think yourself righteous? I am Chejop Kejak, Chosen of Jupiter and weary steward of an ungrateful cosmos. It is my burden and my tragedy that even such naively well-intentioned heroes as you must die, else you will inevitably grow into such monsters as dwarf the greatest demons you can conceive. For the future, for the world, for mankind, for the Celestial Bureaucracy ordained by the Unconquered Sun himself, YOU MUST DIE!"

And with that, the ancient Sidereal strikes you, and in your moment of doubt, pierces your vaunted invulnerability.

That is what the Conviction flaw is all about, dramatic epics within epics where attackers must wound your soul to wound your body, must force you to betray yourself to pierce your unconquered might.

Temperance

Whereas Compassion and Conviction flaws demand certain action to become relevant, rooted in aspects of the Exalt's personality, Temperance imposes certain physical action-- or more appriately, inaction. Yes, you're stuck in place, and yes, that means someone can continue to wail on you.

However, consider how that can be a heroic flaw. Remember the Spartans, who held off the Persian army vastly larger than themselves by dint of well-chosen terrain and heroism. Or look to Gandalf's much-quoted "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" That is Temperance at work, the power to stand where you are and be as unassailable as the tide. However, Temperance also lends itself to more than last stands. If you parry a falling mountain or remain intact at the center of a crater where Mount Mostath stepped, briefly stunned to immobility but alive despite every rational expectation to the contrary, this too is Temperance.

Why would you choose this Flaw over Compassion or Conviction? Well, perhaps you don't want a clever opponent placing you in a situation where he destroys everything you care about as a prelude to destroying you. Or perhaps the thought of some Palpatine wannabe encouraging you to betray your code and strike him down in anger, thereby nullifying all perfect defenses against his evil lightning blasts, doesn't excite you. Or maybe you're an archer who doesn't mind standing still and sniping while you stand in place and shrug off the shots of their own barrage. Whatever the reason, if your concept makes standing in place a crippling flaw, then Temperance is not for you. However, plenty of concepts support it.

Valor

The reverse of Temperance, Valor demands that you advance to your most dangerous adversary without worrying about the subtleties of personality intrinsic to Compassion and Conviction. Thus, the benefit of having such a straightforward response is as I have already explained.

However, specific to Valor is the concept of the hero throwing himself into the jaws of danger in order to emerge victorious. If you're the Invincible Sword Princess, advancing on your greatest foe is precisely what you want to do. Hanging back and getting worn down and picked off by archers is not how you'll win, because hanging back isn't how you fight. Thus, for such a concept, Valor isn't even a flaw at all, but rather enforcement of what you were going to do anyway.

Do you think Achilles or Heracles would have hesitated to tackle their mightiest adversaries? Why should you? Go forth and kick much ass. It's the Solar way. Let your allies and armies clear the way and keep lesser minions off your back so you can get in there and duel, without worrying about being undone by wicked cunning and mind games.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I challenge you to look at these flaws in their intended spirit, rather than with an eye to break them. If you approach them in the latter context, then you'll find a way. You'll stretch for something to care about that your actions haven't demonstrated warrant such invulnerable concern. You'll create two-dimensional characters who cannot betray themselves because they lack the depth and nuance to do so. And seeing these concepts, you'll conclude that the flaws of Compassion and Conviction are broken. Likewise, if you look at Valor as "marching in suicidally" and Temperance as "standing there stupidly to get wailed on," you'll find them ridiculously underpowered. Only by placing these flaws in the context of rounded characters and mature players will their true merit shine.

Do all that and I think you'll have fewer problems with them. In any case, thank you for voicing your concerns. I hope I've been able to be of some assistance.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Goodwin

Following Discussion

First Followup

Ticktockman wrote:

Debating whether a given flaw applies or not only slows things down.

I agree! Why is there debate? The ST makes a ruling and that ruling is final. End of story.

Ticktockman wrote:

For example (from a previous session), do the Essence weapon traps in an ancient Solar's tomb constitute an "enemy" upon which the PC can march, HGD engaged (Valor flaw)?

Is it something he can actually go and fight? Then it's an enemy. The point isn't to say "Is he charging to his death? If so, then it's Valor!" The point is whether it is an adversary to approach and oppose. A Thousand Forged Dragon. Yeah, that's an enemy. A Soulbreaker Orb? Not so much.

Ticktockman wrote:

We discussed this for a bit, and it was neither interesting nor quick (I ruled the flaw took hold, btw -- crispy Solar).

Whenever you turn it into a debate, it's going to slow down. That's not a flaw of perfect defense flaws. That's a flaw of the debate process. Besides limiting or outright removing debate, my chief suggestion for handling flaws is to look at their intent to derive applicability even more than their wording. Talk it over with players during the chargen process, or when they are buying perfect defenses in game.

Explain that Conviction is going to apply most of the time, unless you betray yourself or get forced to betray yourself, so the best way to maintain your defense is to understand your Motivation and labor to be true to that goal and watchful of attempts to force you into self-sabotage. Point out how this course of behavior will reach beyond simply ensuring your defense is valid, but how it encourages the character to take a stand on issues and then follow through with that behavior.

Explain that Compassion requires characters to actually care about stuff and not just conveniently do so when they need it. In other words, they have to put their money where their mouth is. If they do, not only will they have access to fairly dependent perfect defenses, but they will also tend to gather up Intimacies that will create interesting plot hooks and round out the character.

Explain that Valor and Temperance are probably best suited to close combat and ranged combat characters respectively, but throw out the kinds of examples of heroic archetypes that resonate with each. Be sure to point out that unlike Conviction and Compassion, the defense always works, so it can't be worked around by being sneaky. Let the movement considerations be part of the tactical process as a whole.

When your players understand how you intend to use the rules, then they have a reasonable chance of anticipating your rulings. What they likely don't want-- and I wouldn't want-- is a feeling that such rulings are arbitrary and capricious, let alone inherently antagonistic. If they trust that you will follow through on a communicated intention, then you won't have to worry about anger is you forgo debate in favor of a quick ruling. More importantly, you will be better equipped to make such rulings fairly and consistently. This will certainly speed play.

Ticktockman wrote:

This may be an exception to the general course of things, but with the possibility of broadly sketched Motivations or definitions of "enemy," it's going to happen.

Go back to the first thing I said in my explanations:

Nephilpal wrote:

As always, you can't make a system proof against abuse. Like any other rule, the Four Flaws of Perfection depend upon careful Storyteller adjudication to function as intended.

Let's be honest. The flaws are going to automatically fail and suck as a game mechanic if any of the following conditions are true:

1. The Storyteller can't rein in player-driven abuse through application of common sense and consistent intent-driven rulings.
2. The Storyteller is out to get the players, rather than use flaws (physical, social, mental or otherwise) as a function of generating interesting plot points.
3. The players lack the maturity to accept inherently subjective Storyteller rulings gracefully and allow the game to move on when things don't go their way.

There are probably other things that belong on that list, but they generally amount to the same thing.

Ticktockman wrote:

I appreciate the illustrations, Neph (and the time taken to write them), but they don't make perfect defenses interesting to me.

I'm glad you appreciate them, especially since they did take a while to write. I'm sorry you don't find them compelling.

Ticktockman wrote:

It seems the only way to make them interesting is to exploit the hole (as ST). "Hah! The bad guy has lured you into a deathtrap which I've determined is not an "enemy." Prepare to die!"

One could make an argument that this is a half full or half empty debate between optimism and pessimism, except that here it's more like: For X motes, you are invulnerable the vast majority of the time. Not half, not most, but the vast majority of the time.

If you are a player, then you can work to arrange situations where the flaws won't come up as part of building and playing your character.

If you have Compassion-based defenses, you are rewarded for building Intimacies and showing how big-hearted you can be. Now If you wanted to play such a character concept, you're getting rewarded for doing what you already planned to do. How cool is that? If you like playing the apathetic loner antihero, well, pick another flaw. Compassion would be a bad choice for you, but hey, there are three more options to choose from.

If you have Conviction-based defenses, you get rewarded for actually doing what you say you're going to do. The more true you are to your core purpose, the more invulnerable you get.

If you have Temperance based defenses, you can hold the line or the bridge or just go nuts with your bow-fu. Were you planning to move from there? Probably not. Hey, cool. I get to be invulnerable while I'm Gandalfing the (Third Circle) Balrog! Also, I bet you didn't know that was a verb.

If you have Valor, you can call out the big bad and go punk it out. If you aren't the "go forth and punk mightily" type, grab another flaw.

There's also the fun of dealing with Solar enemies when you are the PCs. Not all Solars are PCs, after all, even in a Solar game. Let's say you're playing a Brotherhood of Immaculate Monks out on a Wyld Hunt mission. You realize that if you throw a big enough attack at the hated demon, you can get him to charge you-- or just stand there. Hey, maybe you can use that to lure him into a bad position where you can gangbang him. Suddenly, your tactical observations are rewarded with a chance to defeat this superior and nigh invulnerable foe. Or maybe that adversary is going in for the esoterics, so you have to figure out what they care about or believe in in order to defeat them. That's story fodder right there, up with "What's the Deathlord's secret weakness?"

As an ST, you can focus on the antagonistic side: "How do I make these Charms useless? Muahahahaha!" Or you can say, "How can I use this as fodder for stories?" Sometimes, that means setting up a supposedly inescapable death trap because the villain has figured out the heroe's secret weakness, but if you're going to go that route, then I certainly hope it's because you are trying to get the players to think outside the box of "I'm invulnerable!" and rely on another strength to achieve victory. After all, the game should be about giving your players lots of ways to have fun and be cool while solving the in-game obstacles you set before them.

Beyond plain old antagonism, there's the value in letting the flaws subtly guide and reward good play as I described for players. Want to get a character more involved in the setting you've labored so hard to build? Point out how much benefit sych caring can provide via a perfect defense with the Compassion flaw. Want to reward a character who stays true to their Motivation time and again, even in the face of temptation and adversity? Point out that such behavior is just the sort of thing that makes Conviction shine. By letting deliberate negation of flaws be a strength, the rule becomes an opportunity to reward and encourage strength.

Ticktockman wrote:

I'm sure more appealing scenarios can be developed than my example, but hopefully it illustrates my point of view. A vivid description of events makes the use of powers interesting, not game mechanics that encourage contrived scenarios or debate over their application.

Vivid descriptions rock. I'm all about the stunts. That's a big part of why I expanded stunting to include limited dramatic editing at the two and three point level and let Motivation-driven stunts be worth more. However, I think a big part of your problem stems from the perception that debate is necessary in the face of such mechanics. Lay your expectations out on the table. Be honest and straightforward. Be firm and fair, and skip the debate. If you let players bog down gameplay when you can decisively move past it, then the problem lies in the playing, not the game.

As for the contrived nature of situations involving the flaws, they are only as contrived as you let them be. I would certainly argue that there is nothing contrived about Achilles being invulnerable as he moves inexporably to cut down the champions of his enemies. I would argue that there is nothing contrived about any epic hero whose power is an expression of his confidence to be weakened by having that very confidence effectively assaulted. I would argue that the four flaws can create far more interesting tactical challenges than mere Willpower management alone ever could.

But all that said: I would also agree that the rules and wording for the four flaws can be exploited, abused and mismanaged in a way detrimental to fun, and that they are highly dependent on having a Storyteller willing and able to use them as intended.

Ticktockman wrote:

IMO, of course.

Of course.

Second Followup

Ticktockman wrote:

There is debate because we're all still trying to figure out the system, our likes and dislikes, and the interpretation of various rules. This forum alone attests to the number of questions raised on significant and common situations. While I have no problem being "the Decider," I do want to make sure that I'm not missing something (my players and this forum often show that to be the case).

Ah. I see. So it's not players trying to talk you out of rulings they don't like, but rather a cooperative exercise in figuring out what you as a group want to use.

That makes a lot more sense. That kind of debate is very healthy to a game. What I would suggest is that you do that before or between games when those Charms can be purchased rather than letting it bog down a combat in the middle. That may help somewhat, and you might find some of the suggestions I've made in earlier posts helpful as starting points for that dialogue.

I think I was thrown off by the word debate, which has antagonistic connotations. I tend to prefer "dialogue" to describe the process you described, though I freely admit that to be a purely semantic point. However, I do understand clearer, and I appreciate you sharing.

Ticktockman wrote:

Your thoughts on the FFoI are illuminating; I wish something like that had been placed in the book, rather than the simplistic sidebar we received.

It is a sad truth that we seldom have room for detailed explanations of mechanics, especially in a corebook. Trust me when I say that word limits are a bitch, and Rebecca was doing her utmost to cram as much awesome into that chapter as possible with the wordcount she had. But like you say, there's a reason we have forums for such dialogue.

Ticktockman wrote:

I'm generally a pessimist, so there you have it.

Ha! I so called it.

Ticktockman wrote:

I'm not worried about abuse, fortunately; my players aren't prone to that sort of thing.

Wonderful! I hope you appreciate how fortunate you are to have such players.

Ticktockman wrote:

Perhaps my greatest issue is that perfect effects reduce drama and trivialize threat, especially when those defenses are operable against anything (e.g., being able to block normally unblockable effects).

This gets back to the alteration of defense magic from first edition to second. In X1, Solars had access to defenses, persistent defenses and perfect defenses. Plain old defenses carried over quite nicely to DV, at least when one averages out the results over time. This, of course, reduced the number of rolls required to resolve each attack, thereby acclerating the pace of combat. Persistent defenses were trickier, because they could be layered to create a nigh-perfect scene length denial of attack, which made ISP builds so very one-sidedly dangerous. Actual perfect defenses were quite expensive because of the Willpower cost associated with them, but that was ok because persistent defenses did the trick of perfectly defending against all but the strongest attacks.

The trouble with persistent defenses was that they were boring and involved plenty of rolls. Dethroning them was a logical choice, but something had to cover the void left behind by the X1 persistent role, or else Solars would lose out in the transition in a way that tends toward fanboy lynch mobs. What was needed was a way for Solars to reliably knock aside attacks without adding to the total number of rolls, and with a per-attack cost so that it could be managed. Cue perfect defenses, which were made more accessible by stripping away the willpower cost and dropping the mote portion to the point that it lets them break even simply by making a two point stunt.

Suddenly, the dynamic made constant Essence influx all the more critical. Sure, you could perfect a lot more, the effect of which was to protect you comparably with persistents of old, but if you didn't actually do something interesting (i.e. stunt), you would be worn away. Also, rather than tie "trumping" to defense applicability like undodgeable and unblockable, where such effects are very rare and often hard to reliably get without very specific Charm builds, the decision was made to add the Four Flaws so as to make a kind of "trump" that anyone could theoretically take advantage of if they were clever about it, while making such attacks harder to trump if the defenders were clever. In short, it created a system that gave the advantage to the most clever and stunt-driven tactics.

So that's what you have.

Ticktockman wrote:

In my games, WP is harder to come by than normal Exalted rules, so 1st Edition made the use of perfect defenses tactically dangerous. Do you really want to spend that WP?

Ah! When you change the variables, you certainly get a different balance. Perfect defenses in X2 are no nearly as difficult to use and apply as their X1 counterparts when those depend on a much scarcer willpower. I can see why it's a major upgrade in overall power for your games, and why that's a concern for you. However, it may help to think of X2 perfects as pulling double duty as X1 ersistents and X1 perfects in terms of where they fit in the overall defensive arsenal.

Ticktockman wrote:

Here, tactical considerations play much less a role except in the narrowest of circumstances (save, perhaps, for the Temperance flaw, which no one seems interested in taking). Perfection comes cheap and easy. Thus, my primary issue -- aside from the occasional question of applicability -- is that it clashes with my style. I'll keep your very helpful examples in mind if I continue to use this system.

Read back up through my examples for some suggestions on how to make all the flaws into significant (albeit manageable) tactical considerations. For instance, if you're fighting someone rooted in Valor, you need only present the most obviously dangerous threat and then hit them hard enough to force perfection and suddenly they are compelled to head a particular direction. You can certainly make an ambush opportunity out of that-- or heck, herd them around by varying where the greatest apparant threat lies. For Conviction, you study their behavior to figure out what matters most to them, then set them up to betray that. As anyone who has ever known that they needed to study for a final and then gotten seduced into going out and getting pizza with friends can attest, sabotaging someone against their better nature can be remarkably effective. With Compassion, think to how you best destroy (or create) a hero: take away everything they value, piece by piece, as a campaign of sadistic attrition. Or more immediately, take away anything shiny that they brandish in a heroic fashion and attack their followers and allies.

In any case, I appreciate your feedback. I'm glad you've found my answers helpful.

Third Followup

Ticktockman wrote:

Having done some writing for WW/S&S, I know the feeling. While there really is a lot to love in the new Charm chapter, reading it was painful. I suspect word limitation played quite a role there, since I know and respect Rebecca's considerable talent.

I'm glad you understand those limitations and recognize Rebecca's talent. She is in fact awesome.

Ticktockman wrote:

Of course, now everyone has a sort of persistent defense through the DV system.

You are correct in that they are literally persistent defenses since they are unrolled values you can use throughout the scene. However, when many people reference persistent defenses, they associating them with the defensive Charms considered such in First Edition, which had the far more awesome effect of not only being persistent, but persistently applying your maximum possible defensive effort against every attack. DV lacks this key quality.

Ticktockman wrote:

Even without FFBS, my group's Dawn Caste (me_not_you) is hard as hell to hit, much less hurt.

DV can be plenty effective, especially if it's managed well by someone who understands the tactics involved.

Ticktockman wrote:

Persistent defenses have lost the aspect of necessity, but given the new system they truly are potent in the situations they govern (perhaps it's the loss of universal applicability which the devs considered in this balancing act).

Actually, you nailed it. By making them narrowly awesome, rather than so overwhelming that they make other non-perfect defense options obslete, they become more interesting and more balanced.

Ticktockman wrote:

Which is the case in 1st Edition, tho' with the addition of having to recover WP (tho' not a concern in my game).

Since you can only recover motes or willpower per stunt, then the ratio is more like two solid stunts per defense used, which is twice as hard and requires interjection of additional actions besides consistently defending in an awesome manner.

Ticktockman wrote:

Only, in a Solar game, I'm the one that has to be clever, and for the ST it's not so difficult.

Well, as the ST, you're omnipotent and nigh omniscient anyway. You can zap a character with an obscure spiritual effect that drains away their Essence and then hits them with lethal overwhelming force when they can't activate Charms in defense. You can be really lame and pull a Kukla on them. Information-wise, you know how the whole universe might think and what they want except for roughly five characters or so. You manage whether to ever give a stunt bonus to a Storyteller character, and whether you're being fair in doing so, given your automatic bias in imagining yourself clever.

If you can do all these things, you can be fair in the cleverness you give your Storyteller characters to take advantage of the Four Flaws. Peasant militia probably won't think to attack a Solar's utopian dream with monologues between sword swings, but an Abyssal nemesis certainly might. Like any other form of tactical competence, you assign it where it best belongs in a way that is interesting and exciting for the game.

Ticktockman wrote:

I can see where you're coming from: FFoI provide the opportunity to create a sort of moral dilemma (by analogy), wherein the PC may have to decide between using the best defense Essence can buy or -- for whatever reason -- avoid the circumstance that comes with it.

And that's only one of many possible uses. But I'm glad you see that one.

Ticktockman wrote:

Again, all very helpful. I'm sure my players and I will have a lively chat about it (tho' after 2.5 years in this chronicle, only one has a perfect defense).

Perhaps after this conversation, you will have more takers. Very Happy

Ticktockman wrote:

I gotta go.

Nice talking with you.

Fourth Followup

The approach I've always taken is that Solar perfection is rooted in specific dominions. What you are best at, you are unrivaled in, but just because you are an unrivaled sword master doesn't mean an unrivaled archer can't nail your punk ass to the wall at thirty miles if you don't have your weapon drawn, etc.

True invincibility goes strongly against the "anything is possible" theme Exalted has going through it. It doesn't matter whether you're a titan or a demigod or anything in between. There is always a way to bring you down.

Fifth Followup

Ticktockman wrote:

I take quite the opposite view, that the perfect defenses are too perfect, even for Solars. If this is an extreme opinion, then 2nd Edition likely strikes the fine balance between my conception and ArgentOil's.

-TTm

I think extreme would be too, well, extreme a word. Better to say that you are on different sides of a continuum between those who want Solars to be invincible and those who want them to have key vulnerabilities. The rules in X2 allow both. You can be invulnerable, but you have to be clever in your tactics and stunts to keep a positive or at least neutral Essence flow while manipulating the engagement so as not to expose yourself to any actual danger through your flaws of choice. However, barring this quite heroic effort on the part of the character and player alike, Solars are "merely" peerless in their defensive competence compared with other denizens of their world (and beyond).

--Michael A. Goodwin

Sixth Followup

In response to the suggestion that a Conviction 5 Solar would ignore Chejop's monologue -- Editor

Strictly speaking, the trait in question wouldn't be Conviction, but rather Integrity, and injecting a moment of doubt would be a social attack. Conviction "merely" helps determine how long it takes to build or tear down Intimacies, which is not the same thing as providing a shield against immediate doubt.

You are correct, however, in that a high-Conviction Solar would almost certainly spend Willpower to resist having an Intimacy attacked. It would be fair to say the example I suggested would be the finishing move of a social battle leading into a physical confrontation. A better example might be pulling a Green Goblin and giving a Solar a choice between two people that can be saved, when you know full well it would be against his Motivation to deliberately allow any of those deaths. In that horrible moment after he lunges to rescue one or the other, you hit him at that moment of self-betrayal.

Seventh Followup

CornerDweller wrote:

Neph, that was pretty awsome.

I do sorta wish that Perfects wern't the only possible response to "any interesting attack".

Define interesting attack.

CornerDweller wrote:

I kinda like it before, when they were reserved for things like the God Spear, rather than "Moderatly skilled attack with a Grand Daiklave".

How did you defend against moderately strong attack with a daiklave before, and more importantly, why isn't that strategy viable now?

My thought was this:

CornerDweller wrote:

You can spend a willpower to override the flaw in your perfect defences. I.e., if you add a willpower cost, you can ativate them, even if they don't apply.

At which point the flaws only actually matter to someone who is out of willpower, since they already come up so seldom that having the ability to counter-trump that way allows you to ignore all the tactics others cleverly arranged (with no small difficulty, I'll add).

CornerDweller wrote:

I like this, as it gives people a chance to stunt them back into applicability somehow.

Not sure I know what you mean here.

CornerDweller wrote:

Or maybe just allow "cost a willpower" as a flaw.

That's a much harsher flaw than the existing four in terms of how often it will be a liability. If that's what you want, great, but it's harsh.

The thing is:

CornerDweller wrote:

Panther: "The sins of the fathers are not passed down to the children. " No Problem.

Ok, cool. Now please apply your parry MDV against Chejop's social attack. If you fail, please spend willpower to resist.

But better still is where you actually put them in a situation to betray their Motivation or else lose something they care about.

CornerDweller wrote:

And if you can't save both, is it really against your modivation?

That depends very much on your Motivation, doesn't it?

Eighth Followup

CornerDweller wrote:

Has a good chance of beating your DV. (Which isn't that hard. ) Assuming you Guard, your DV is basicly an average roll on a 1E persistant. Which isn't unbeatable by anymeans.

Right, but you missed one of my questions. How did you handle a competent grand daiklave user before?

CornerDweller wrote:

Well, if your spending a WP per attack, you'll run out pretty quick. I'd like something between. "Ping! My Defence works! I'm fine!" and "Ack! My Defence Fails! I am dead!"

That's what DV and soak are for.

CornerDweller wrote:

I mean, if you go through all the trouble to arrange to where someones perfects don't apply, why WOULDN'T you take advantage of that window the best way you can?

You would. You should. And they should be working equally hard to make sure you can't, so that the edge goes to the cleverer tactician.

CornerDweller wrote:

Basicly, it's awful binary.

How so?

CornerDweller wrote:

The idea of the willpower thing is to allow a possiblity of recovery. Like doing something so they apply again. (Obviously, this depends on the situation.)

What do you mean by recovery?

CornerDweller wrote:

The difficulty with the Valor and Temprence flaws is:

1) What happens if you use them multiple times?

Does the duration stack?

It doesn't stack. It does reset, however.

CornerDweller wrote:

That seems to cause the hit-lock problem you get in CRPG's, where you keep hitting something so fast it can't react.

I have no CRPG experience, so I can't really comment.

CornerDweller wrote:

This sorta makes these two into an auto-death sentance, as not being able to retreat or react is incredibly bad.

Hold up. I think there's a misconception here. Having to advance forward toward the most dangerous adversary isn't a death sentence. It's an opportunity to get in close and be awesome in a duel environment. Yes, you can retreat, but nothing stops you from winning. Likewise, standing still doesn't mean you can't defend or attack. It means "HOLD THE LINE!" or "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" Movement is only one of many tactical options on a battlefield, and if you have those flaws, you should be using your perfects in conjunction with tactics that support such movement limitations so that they become "What I planned to do anyway."

CornerDweller wrote:

My interpretation is that you can use the perfect freely until the 2 DV refreshes happen, and then your free to act again. (This avoid the lock problem, but still makes the flaw a disadvantage).

My understanding is that it's a reset, so you'd be committing yourself to advancing or retreating, but not cumulatively so.

CornerDweller wrote:

But a clarification would be nice.

Hope I have.

CornerDweller wrote:

I suppose it could be that PC's should use Conviction and Compassion, while the other two are reserved for NPC's....but bleh.

I would strongly beg to differ.

If you are an in-your-face-ass-kicker, Valor isn't really that much of a flaw. If you're a "stand back and nuke them with ranged attacks" type or you have taken up a position where the enemy cannot advance without going through you, Temperance isn't so much of a Flaw.

On the other end of the spectrum, you had better believe that cool NPCs can have Motivation and intimacy driven invulnerabilities. For an adversary, these open up great opportunities for the PCs to figure out what their enemies want and care about as a prelude to successfully attacking them. Just finding that information out could be the basis of a story.

CornerDweller wrote:

2)What if you alternate between Valor and Temprence? What happens?

Maybe you attack the strongest opponent you can without moving? Or move to the strongest opponent and stand still?

Newest effect replaces existing one. So you go from charging to standing still or vice versa.

CornerDweller wrote:

Well, yes. Although I prefer to avoid semantic arguments about peoples modivations.

There's nitpicking and there's being consistently true to a stated intention. If you've vowed that you will "Never allow an innocent to die." and you are placed in a situation where you have to choose to let an innocent die to save another, you're in a no-win situation where whatever you do, you'll be acting against your Motivation. That's evil, but it's also appropriate for a villain to do. Of course, if you had "Do all in my power to keep innocents from dying" then you could probably argue that you can't be held responsible for a no-win situation as long as you actually did all you could to save them. Semantics matter, and the reason they matter is because two characters with those two Motivations I listed are quite different in their moral outlook. One is an idealist, the other a pragmatist. This needs to be clear.

Ninth Followup

In response to a post about why the mote cost and number of pre-requisites of Seven Shadow Evasion is less than that of Heavenly Guardian Defense -- Editor

When you buy into Melee, you get both attack and defense, and a very competent package of each.

When you buy dodge, you only get defense, so it gets to have the edge. The advantage on the Melee side is that you can remain within your fighting style without grabbing any paying a surcharge to obtain potentially non-favored Charms from another Ability. None of the other three attack abilities provide this advantage with any consistency, not even Martial Arts.

--Michael

Tenth Followup

Ticktockman wrote:

me_not_you and I talked about the Flaws and Neph's discussion of them in this thread. He raised the salient point that the Flaws affect non-combat applications of Perfect Defenses.

Take falling, for example. In 1E, Adamant Skin Technique was the safeguard against, say, being tossed from a Haslanti air ship. Now, not so much. Unless your Motivation is to leave divots across Creation, anyway. The Temperance flaw would apply, but Neph's nifty example of "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" becomes, "I've fallen and I can't get up."

I beg your pardon?

Compassion: Are you falling anywhere near anything or anyone you care about? If so, check.

Conviction: You seem to be under the impression that you can only use this defense when your actions support your Motivation. This is not the case. Your actions must *oppose* your motivation for it to cease being applicable. I assure you, most Solars do not have "Avoid blowing craters in the world" as a Motivation, so they'll be just fine.

Temperance: Here, I'll illustrate:

"What is this?" the Bull of the North roared, looking at the Essence-charged crossbow pointed at his chest. His hand moved instinctively toward his daiklave but he relaxed as he saw Elias' finger tighten on the trigger.

"This is what we call a double-cross, warlord," Elias replied and laughed mockingly. "You didn't really think a civilization as advanced as ours would actually join with your barbaric horde, did you?"

"But you said..." the Bull began, but Elias cut him off with a wave of his hand.

"I said I would give you a demonstration of Haslanti air power," the sky commando corrected. "Consider this a demonstration." With a high-pitched metallic twang, the crossbow fired a bolt of enchanted force directly into the Bull's chest, hurling him over the railing of the airboat.

As the warlord tumbled through the air, the Bull spun about to look up at the quickly receding boat. He saw the flicker of Elias' Caste Mark and realized the Haslanti agent was watching him fall. "I will have my revenge, Elias!" he shouted up.

"Convey my regards to the glacier!" his enemy spat back, and turned away to resume piloting. Far below, the Bull turned all his attention to the approaching ground. Only a few seconds remained to impact.

When the Bull hit the sheet of ice, the shattering force of his impact left a steaming crater and echoed across the frozen wastes, triggering avalaches on slopes more than five miles away. Within the center of the crater, the Bull's body lay still a few seconds. By all rights, every bone in his body should have broken, splattering his viscera on the snow for a hundred yard radius. By all rights, he should be dead. But in a span of mere heartbeats, his head raised and his fingers moved toward his daiklave. He could see the skyship drifting away like a wind-borne cloud.

"You won't escape me that easily, traitor!" he whispered, and with sinews flexing in a display of impossible superhuman strength, he sprang skyward.

Valor: Actually, this is basically a freebie for dealing with environmental effects. You may be compelled to advance toward the most dangerous enemy you can perceive, but without an enemy, that compulsion doesn't make you go anywhere. Of course, if you do a jump-fall into a warzone, that's different. You'll be picking yourself up and charging, but that's probably what you had in mind anyway.

Ticktockman wrote:

This particular weakness is especially salient in the Wyld, where an avalanche of exploding acidic boulder brains seems proof against three of the four Flaws (Temperance again being the exception). While other Charms exist that can surely compensate, we're talking Perfect Defenses. Is this a weakness of the 2E system

I'm very confused here. Care to elaborate?

Eleventh Followup

Let's make sure we have the text to go on while doing critical readings:

Valor Flaw: The Exalt must move toward the opponent he considers most dangerous, on every tick where this is possible without magic, until his DV refreshes twice.

Reading: I've actually been too harsh in applying this flaw. In reality, as long as you're inching your way over to the enemy you consider most dangerous, you're fine. That's the rules-lawyer interpretation. The "in the fair spirit" interpretation is that you should be actually moving at a reasonable pace (no slower than the full distance afforded by a move action). Also, do note that you are automatically under a compulsion, and that applicability is NOT tested by this Flaw, which means it works when you suffer an environmental damage effect that causes you to be in "check for enemy" mode for two actions.

Compassion Flaw: The Exalt can only use this Charm when in the presence of someone or something he cares about.

Reading: While it's certainly heroic for a lesser being to have a limited perfect defense that functioned only rarely when defending the object of an intimacy, for instance, Solars are not nearly so confined. They draw their invulnerable strength merely by being near those they care about, their power affirmed by their own loyalty and love.

Temperance Flaw: The Exalt cannot take movement actions such as move, dash, flight, teleportation or jumping until his DV refreshes twice.

Reading: You can't consciously choose to move from your spot or do things that help you move. So you can't sit on a horse you're riding and be borne away, because you control that. You can, however, stand motionless on the balcony railing of an enormous howdah atop a mutant mammoth, because you aren't steering that.

Conviction Flaw: This Charm does not function when a Solar's actions are contrary to his Motivation. The Storyteller should assume that a Solar's actions qualify unless an enemy deliberately arranges for terms of conflict that dispirit and shake the purpose of the Exalt. The player can interpret it more strictly if desired.

Reading: I shan't beat a dead horse. Just scroll up.