Playing a true, Pure Fae

[Belial666]

Meh. Always speaking truth is never a guarantee of honesty anyway. Just read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time.

[Mr. Death]

So they have to answer the question if asked three times?

No. As I said before, there's nothing in the books or anything that implies so.

[Belial666]

Funniest things a Fae can do when speaking the truth;


1) Cast a spell on herself to prevent her from hearing the question. Then in any situation she more or less knows what the other guy is going to ask she can say anything she wants since she wouldn't be lying to a question she didn't actually hear but the questioner would assume she was answering his questions.

2) Cast a spell/glamour on herself that changes her words after she speaks but before others hear them, specifically into various lies/deceptions each time she speaks the truth. Just because she has to speak the truth doesn't mean she has to allow others to hear it now, does it?

[nick012000]

For what it's worth, I think that Cold Days probably answers the questions regarding the Free Will vs Nature for Fae. Can't say more, though, since this isn't a spoiler board.

[amberpup]

You always have the option of never answering a question.  The weird thing is you could tell the straight truth every time and people would still want you to answer three times because of the reputation garnered by all the other fairies.  Although trust can be built up, Harry never bothers to ask Toot to say anything more than once anymore.

Actually I kinda like the 'Three Times' rule since it would prevent a Fae from just not answering your question. But doing so is considered a hostile act, so using it against a ally (like Harry and Toot) or a neutral (a fae who doesn't care either way if you live or die) would only bring about feelings of enmity. So its a double edge sword, which fits the setting.

[UmbraLux]

Actually I kinda like the 'Three Times' rule since it would prevent a Fae from just not answering your question.

I'm curious, why do you think they should have to answer? 

I suspect such a requirement would simply escalate the situation.  Any fae with experience would interject a bargain prior to the third question.  "If you really wish to know, ask again and pay my price."

[amberpup]

I'm curious, why do you think they should have to answer? 

I suspect such a requirement would simply escalate the situation.  Any fae with experience would interject a bargain prior to the third question.  "If you really wish to know, ask again and pay my price."

With a google search, I got "Why does Jesus ask Peter 'do you love me?' three times? And their answer was in the Bible, three is a 'good' number. Then it gives some examples why, even talking about how Peter denied knowing Jesus three times before Jesus' crucifixion. Then found a page on the Rule of Three "Good things come in 3s. So do bad things. And even things that are neither good nor bad." which talks about trebling, and how the Rule of 3 is a pattern used in stories and jokes, where part of the story is repeated 3 times, with minor variations. The first 2 instances build tension, and the 3rd releases it by incorporation a twist.

Ok cool, so now we could suppose this rule apply to the Fae with this evidences. We have both a biblical, and a story telling reason. Both having some influence on the Seelie/Unseelie Court nature, even if it was long ago. And to my "Why?", its because it brings a unfamiliarity to the world of the Courts. I like that, because most people don't understand how truth can also do you great harm. And if we add the rule that by asking a fae three times, you also get their hostile for such a social faux pas... Well, that makes it even better in my opinion. So I guess one could consider it the 'nuclear option' when dealing with a Fae. So by doing so you will get your answer but maybe more then you care to know, plus you just made a powerful enemy. I mean, what isn't there to love? 

[UmbraLux]

I mean, what isn't there to love?

Not sure if you misunderstood my question or if I'm missing your response.  My question wasn't "What is interesting about the number three?" it was "Why do you want answers handed out just for asking?"  In other words, why should an NPC 'have' to answer just because he's asked?  Perhaps I should have continued with "How will it affect the game?"

Seems the game might devolve into "beat up a fae for the answer".  Sounds like it would get old fast. 

I'm all for using numerology along with our myths and games.  You can already do so without drawing hard lines of "must answer" in the ground.  Just declare you've asked three times, tag it, and add it to your social roll.  Gives you a benefit but not a certainty.

[Tedronai]

I'd more suggest an invoke-for-effect triggering a compel against the Fae's High Concept.  They can refuse and buy it off, but given the Fae's typical (negative) refresh values, it'd be rather expensive.  If they DO buy it off, represent that not as them speaking falsehood, they're Fae after all and these are the rules of their existence, but as the speaking of plain truth not substantially negatively impacting their plans.

[UmbraLux]

That works as well.  Point is that the mechanics to use it are there.  No need to add a narrative 'must answer'.

[amberpup]

Not sure if you misunderstood my question or if I'm missing your response.  My question wasn't "What is interesting about the number three?" it was "Why do you want answers handed out just for asking?"  In other words, why should an NPC 'have' to answer just because he's asked?  Perhaps I should have continued with "How will it affect the game?"

Seems the game might devolve into "beat up a fae for the answer".  Sounds like it would get old fast. 

I'm all for using numerology along with our myths and games.  You can already do so without drawing hard lines of "must answer" in the ground.  Just declare you've asked three times, tag it, and add it to your social roll.  Gives you a benefit but not a certainty.

You could argue that same points above with the how the game says a Fae always tell the truth.

But I'm not saying you shouldn't have some underlining game mechanics for either, nor it won't get abused in some instances. I just said I found the concept interesting enough to try adding it to my own campaign. As for 'beating-up a fae for answers', that's already a possibility.  Hmm.. the skill 'Intimidation' has both a social attack (getting your answer by consequences) and one called 'Threat' ( but using the mental track instead), then we got Rapport:chit/chat to trick out info without the target knowing. None of that is 'beating-up your npcs", its just the favor the RAW and setting.

And personally, I see no more players abusing the Rule of Three then I see them mega-gaming Self Compelling, Declaration, or Scholarship-Declaring Minor Details. Yet then, I'm huge Amber DRPG GM from way back and were never worried about my players abusing my npcs. In fact, most of my players now I think would agree that it was high time that they got the chance to turn the tables. And if they wish to track down Lady Midday (the newest of my fae) to badger her about some answer they think is so damned important and invoking her nature and bypassing the more social norms... then they deserve her belligerence from that point on.

In fact, you could even award them a fate dice for that.

As for the minor fae, it sucks to be weak!

Yet thinking about it some more, I would set a certain rank within the Courts for that Rule of Three to come into effect. As in, you must be of the Courts and not just a average wyld like Toots. And with a little more thought, make the Queens immune to it. But I do understand, its a house rule for everyone's game. Heck, alot of the house rules I read here I would never use myself. But then, I've always been more interested in favor then simply game mechanics, even if it leads to the same place.

[Belial666]

The Fae are specifically forbidden from offering ANYTHING freely, including information (Lea explains why in Ghost Story). That is in their nature as much (if not moreso) as speaking the truth.



So you just had the Fae tell you the truth. Excellent. In exchange, the Fae gets a link to you. It can call in that marker for a favor. Or, if you pissed her off sufficiently, she can sell that marker to somebody hostile to you and they can use that link to work thaumaturgy on you. Have fun.

[Tedronai]

In exchange, the Fae gets a link to you.

Not unless you agreed to that.  And no, simply asking the question does not constitute such an agreement.

[Belial666]

Not unless you agreed to that.

Evidence (and Lea's explanation plus her helping a 16-year-old harry) says otherwise. If you accept something they give you, you are beholden to them and they must take equal exchange - even if they themselves would wish otherwise. Information, verbal agreements, any gifts, even accepting hospitality. (you give them back equally in that you must act as a guest when they are acting as hosts)

And no, simply asking the question does not constitute such an agreement.

Getting an answer does. Lea specifically warns Harry that she can't give him information without exacting equal payment.

[Tedronai]

An proposed agreement can be delivered subtly, and consent doesn't need to be informed (thus you can agree to things you didn't know about or understand), but simply asking questions of the Fae does not give them power over you.
'Getting an answer' is an action taken by the Fae.  The entire concept of the Fae gaining power over other is that that power must be GIVEN.  A Fae gaining power over another based wholly on action taken BY that Fae is utterly inimical to this concept, and thus to one of the most fundamental pillars of the concept of the Fae themselves.
If all Lea had to do to gain yet more power over Harry was to answer his question, then she WOULD HAVE.  She would not have bothered with that warning if his consent had already been given to the exchange.  Despite having been phrased as a warning of an impending exchange, it was more likely the proposal for that exchange.