• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

SBA Modification Suggestion: State of Mind

Flashlight237

VS Battles
Calculation Group
4,919
2,836
So while debating a thread involving Princess Peach, there is something that was brought up about one clause.:

"Each character will view their opponents as enemies, who they have to assume wish to cause them severe harm such that losing could have any range of dire consequences. The characters will assume their opponents have not been forced into battle. They are assumed to have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by a just cause, difficult times or otherwise exonerating circumstances."

While the idea of seeing the opponent as the enemy is justified, the issue lies in the murder part. Plenty of characters in fiction aren't generally Murder Hobos in DnD. Let's look at the famous enemy relationship of Mario and Bowser for example. While there are dire consequences to losing against Bowser going so far as galactic destruction thanks to the Galactic Reactor, at the same time, Mario and Bowser are colloquial enough to take part in a stage play with each other (Super Mario Bros 3) and play a wide variety of sports with each other. Just because they're at each other's throats doesn't mean they're complete assholes.

Outside of that, typically martial artists, boxers, MMA fighters, etc typically seek out fair fights even if they are under the idea that they're going to get severely injured (because MMA is like that). Said respectability extends into battles in the Dragon Ball series (where martial arts is basically the whole point of the series). As far back as the Vegeta saga, Goku was willing to arrange things with Vegeta even if Vegeta would serve as a planetary threat should Goku lose, with him having escorted Vegeta to an abandoned wasteland that would serve as the iconic battleground for their first fight. Goku even arranged a battle on the ground with Frieza back when Goku decided to square up to him.

Heck, even the Yautja, a warrior race, only gets dirty against entities that are too pathetic for them to be worth their while. Against strong opponents, the Yautja will fight honorably.

Through these examples, I feel that a "fair fight" clause should be added to the State of Mind section. Something along the lines of "regardless of the circumstances, it is to be assumed that both combatants are willing to seek out a fair fight." I think that would seem right. Not an outright replacement, just an addition. But yeah, there you have it.
 
"Each character will view their opponents as enemies, who they have to assume wish to cause them severe harm such that losing could have any range of dire consequences. The characters will assume their opponents have not been forced into battle. They are assumed to have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by a just cause, difficult times or otherwise exonerating circumstances."

While the idea of seeing the opponent as the enemy is justified, the issue lies in the murder part.
What murder part? I don't see anything that says they have to kill each other or that they see the other as a murderer, or that they want to kill.

Just that they're the enemy and want to harm them, which losing can have dire consequences.

I don't understand what purpose you're additional text is trying to serve. Could you give an example of the kind of issue that has popped up in versus threads?
 
So while debating a thread involving Princess Peach, there is something that was brought up about one clause.:

"Each character will view their opponents as enemies, who they have to assume wish to cause them severe harm such that losing could have any range of dire consequences. The characters will assume their opponents have not been forced into battle. They are assumed to have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by a just cause, difficult times or otherwise exonerating circumstances."

While the idea of seeing the opponent as the enemy is justified, the issue lies in the murder part. Plenty of characters in fiction aren't generally Murder Hobos in DnD. Let's look at the famous enemy relationship of Mario and Bowser for example. While there are dire consequences to losing against Bowser going so far as galactic destruction thanks to the Galactic Reactor, at the same time, Mario and Bowser are colloquial enough to take part in a stage play with each other (Super Mario Bros 3) and play a wide variety of sports with each other. Just because they're at each other's throats doesn't mean they're complete assholes.

Outside of that, typically martial artists, boxers, MMA fighters, etc typically seek out fair fights even if they are under the idea that they're going to get severely injured (because MMA is like that). Said respectability extends into battles in the Dragon Ball series (where martial arts is basically the whole point of the series). As far back as the Vegeta saga, Goku was willing to arrange things with Vegeta even if Vegeta would serve as a planetary threat should Goku lose, with him having escorted Vegeta to an abandoned wasteland that would serve as the iconic battleground for their first fight. Goku even arranged a battle on the ground with Frieza back when Goku decided to square up to him.

Heck, even the Yautja, a warrior race, only gets dirty against entities that are too pathetic for them to be worth their while. Against strong opponents, the Yautja will fight honorably.

Through these examples, I feel that a "fair fight" clause should be added to the State of Mind section. Something along the lines of "regardless of the circumstances, it is to be assumed that both combatants are willing to seek out a fair fight." I think that would seem right. Not an outright replacement, just an addition. But yeah, there you have it.
@Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69 What do you think about this?
 
I remember that we changed the assumption to "expecting harm" exactly to not force characters into a murder state of mind and I believe the current description is a generic as you can get, it's a baseline assumption of danger from which any character can then develop their own expectations and approaches.
 
What do you think about this?
If it had to change it I would probably rewrite it as
Each character will view their opponents a hostile entity that they are required to fight and defeat. Each character is assumed to have decided from free will to fight and are not excused by an exonerating circumstances. Other than the previously mentioned mindsets, the characters are assumed to act as they would in the work itself.
The mindset for a fight to happen are still in place, the emphasis of them being in-character is there and it still should cover that people wouldn't give up even if it would otherwise in-character.
 
I think the current one works better.
The character can seek a fair fight if that's what they would in-character do against a dangerous opponent, but if they don't do that in-character they don't. Generally specifying a fair fight is obviously limiting and out of character for combatants who have absolutely no interest in these things.
To be clear: The current one doesn't say any character is a murder hobo, it just says that they assume that the opponent is assumed to do something seriously bad to them. That's important to make characters sufficiently serious about the battle in a clear and specific fashion.
 
I think the current one works better.
The character can seek a fair fight if that's what they would in-character do against a dangerous opponent, but if they don't do that in-character they don't. Generally specifying a fair fight is obviously limiting and out of character for combatants who have absolutely no interest in these things.
To be clear: The current one doesn't say any character is a murder hobo, it just says that they assume that the opponent is assumed to do something seriously bad to them. That's important to make characters sufficiently serious about the battle in a clear and specific fashion.
I also agree.
 
Back
Top