[Homebrew]This Sin Shall Not Pass-Judgements as Bans

[ArcaneArts]

A question as simple as the title suggest: How do people feel about giving the Arisen bans that are, effectively, "Must punish the sins their Judge cover when confronted with evidence of it"?

[LostLight]

Ammmm.. it does feel appropriate, but I think that instead of "must" they should be able to resist the urge, for a price, at least. While I am all in favor of making the Judges more dominant in the life of the Arisen, making it simply into "you must do it or lose all Willpower/similar Ban punishment" feels a bit too automatonic to my taste. Perhaps it would cause the Judges to punish them by reaping their Sekhem, but only if they explicitly go against punishing the crime. Also, if we were to use such a rule, one would have to define what an appropriate "punishment" for such "sins" (which, considering the time and place from which the Arisen come, it is probably death, with agony if possible)

[Azahul]

I honestly can't recall if this was a house rule in my games or actually in the rulebook, but isn't there already a reward for punishing sinners against your Judge in the form of resetting the descent counter? Albeit if I am remembering this correctly the only acceptable punishment was capital in nature...

[21C Hermit]

Bans do sound harsh, but also feels appropriate for the typical Deathless condition... Maybe somewhere between (forced) Aspirations and Bans, in terms of harshness and rewards?

[ArcaneArts]

I honestly can't recall if this was a house rule in my games or actually in the rulebook, but isn't there already a reward for punishing sinners against your Judge in the form of resetting the descent counter? Albeit if I am remembering this correctly the only acceptable punishment was capital in nature...

There is, and I'm actually fine with using that method-but I idly contemplated the idea on the way to work and wanted to see what people thought on the subject.

[schizoPOP]

Not certain about the precise mechanical implementation. (Ban punishments are pretty loose, some Judge's are more specific than others), but I do think giving the Judges a more overt impact on your character's decision making is a pretty good idea.

[Azahul]

There is, and I'm actually fine with using that method-but I idly contemplated the idea on the way to work and wanted to see what people thought on the subject.

To be fair stick feels more appropriate for the Judges than carrot, so I'm hardly opposed to the change. One of my favourite little quirks of Mummy cosmology is the contrast there with big evil Ammut, who is so confident that the power of entropy will degrade the human soul that her prompts to the Shuankhsen are almost 100% carrot.

Plus, there's room for both for the Arisen. Stick if you fail to address the sin at all, carrot if you go all the way and violently hand down judgement like an ancient deity bereft of mercy.

[FallenEco]

Bans do sound harsh, but also feels appropriate for the typical Deathless condition... Maybe somewhere between (forced) Aspirations and Bans, in terms of harshness and rewards?

That feels stronger to me. I like the idea that you are rewarded for going out of your way to punish people for their sin but punishing the Arisen for blatently disregarding said sin. On the other hand, Descents resets and crisis are other tools available...

[21C Hermit]

That feels stronger to me. I like the idea that you are rewarded for going out of your way to punish people for their sin but punishing the Arisen for blatently disregarding said sin. On the other hand, Descents resets and crisis are other tools available...

Descent resets are classic methods indeed.

My line of thinking is that a lot of fate-defining powers in the CofD seem to have something to do with Aspirations, especially in light of how Aspirations can be something that the character did not intend (or is even aware of) but the player did. They also grant Beats, and one part of the Arisen condition is that power and freedom are inversely related, isn’t it? A mummy who follows their Judge-given Aspiration at every chance is willingly serving the Judge as a pawn, and gaining more power in the form of Experiences for it. Sorta like Mystery Commands from Mage, now that I think about it.

[KageMCS]

Not sure if this is thread necromancy, but what the hell, it's Mummy.

Descent resets are classic methods indeed.

My line of thinking is that a lot of fate-defining powers in the CofD seem to have something to do with Aspirations, especially in light of how Aspirations can be something that the character did not intend (or is even aware of) but the player did. They also grant Beats, and one part of the Arisen condition is that power and freedom are inversely related, isn’t it? A mummy who follows their Judge-given Aspiration at every chance is willingly serving the Judge as a pawn, and gaining more power in the form of Experiences for it. Sorta like Mystery Commands from Mage, now that I think about it.

A thought I had (which may well be me being Captain Obvious) is that it could also be argued in the opposite direction, and thus tie into Mummy's central theme of identity. Aspirations can define your character's goals, what they want out of life. What does that say about a character whose Aspiration is supernaturally locked by their template? How much of your character is herself, and not something imposed by her Judge or the Rite, when even the goals set by the player are restricted? That said, I'm rather fond of the old system of Descent resets and rolls, so I hope this doesn't completely replace those. And Ban punishments from your Judge feels very much in keeping with Descent rolls. Using the mechanics to highlight the chains wrapped around our mighty servants can serve very well to reinforce that "power is a chain you wrap around yourself."