Pathos - a Nature hack

corey_s · June 30, 2010, 8:27pm

{pre-playtest draft}

Thanks goes to Patrick, who really deserves credit for the idea - I simply took it and ran with it (probably too far and wide…) in my own fashion. (I’m not suggesting that Patrick in any way supports my take on his idea!)

Thanks also goes to Dwight and Michael and Paul who provided some valuable insight, much appreciated!

Nature

In the Mouse Guard RPG, the Nature Ability represents critters’ intrinsic/natural instincts. It’s what they are most likely to be seen doing most often in their natural habitat, under normal circumstances.

Guardmice are a somewhat different breed than the usual denizen of the forest however, and Nature serves, additionally, as a game device to promote the conflict between Instinct and Duty.

This thematic mechanism works perfectly within the admirably tightly-focused Mouse Guard setting, but can be somewhat vexing and problematic for the would-be MG ‘hacker’ when trying to “port” the Nature semantics to a more generic, looser setting - such as in the case of, say, a high-fantasy setting in which the ‘patrol’ might consist of several species/race.

It might also be that your group simply wishes to experiment with somewhat different thematic elements, while still remaining largely within the Nature framework and mechanics - so as not to diverge too far from the rules as written.

Enter ‘Ethos’.

Ethos

Ethos: A primary distinguishing disposition, character, archetype, behavior or credo - or a fundamental value or purpose - peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, movement, organization or discipline.

Conceptually, Ethos represents the single most prominent cultural thread within a social group’s history, legends and song - it’s that “angsty” inner fire that fuels both a demographic’s greatest triumphs as well as its worst tragedies. It’s a source of heritage and pride and confidence, but which all too often is also the source of poor judgement, conflict, and anguishwhen taken too far or when forsaken altogether.

The higher the rating, the more you rely on your Ethos as a wellspring for inspiration and inner reserves - which may lead to overzealousness and obsession; the lower your rating, the more disconnected you are from your innate cultural mores and values - which may lead to disenfranchised grief, ennui and/or even extreme reckless/destructive behavior. ( The exact extent and degree of the color/drama/flavor which occurs upon a character hitting the boundaries of Ethos is entirely up to the tastes of your group, or what’s suitable and appropriate to support the tone and theme of the setting - by no means must things be as drastic as described herein! )

Mechanically speaking, like Nature, Ethos has a rating between 0 to 7, and includes three to four aspects/descriptions. Unlike Nature, however, it is tagged with a unique thematic descriptor rather than with the type of animal/species.

For example, the Mouse Guard RPG gives mice: Nature(Mouse), which includes the aspects: escaping, climbing, hiding, foraging.

Contrast this with an Ethos suitable for Mice-kind: Ethos(Caution), which might include the aspects: careful observation, escaping predators, avoiding danger, discovering safe-havens.

Aside from this arguably subtle change of idiom, Ethos largely follows the same mechanical elements and procedures as per Nature (see page 232 of your Mouse Guard rulebook).

Please refer to the Ethos Burner for suggestions and advice on how to create your own Ethos descriptors and aspects.

Acting With Your Ethos

Follows the same rules as for acting with Nature: when attempting an activity that corresponds to an aspect of your character’s Ethos, you can test using your Ethos rating instead of a skill, without consequence. Ethos cannot be used as a substitute for Wises.

Acting Against Your Ethos

As with Nature, a character may use his Ethos as a source of reserves to assist him in overcoming obstacles which he may be unequipped to deal with adequately, due to lacking the proper skill.

Things are a bit more serious with regards to Ethos, however.

Engaging in acts which clearly run counter to a character’s Ethos will deplete his maximum Ethos rating by one point, and will additionally tax Ethos by the margin of failure, should the test fail.

Using Ethos in acts that merely fall outside the Ethos’ scope are resolved in the same manner written for Nature: should the test fail, the current rating is reduced by the margin of failure - no further cost is associated.

Recovering Ethos

Recovering taxed Ethos is achieved by the same methods described in ‘Recovering Nature’.

Depleting Ethos

Exchanging a point from your maximum Ethos rating in order to increase current Ethos operates as per ‘Depleting Nature’.

Tapping Your Ethos

Using Persona for extra effects works as per ‘Tapping Your Nature’, with the following exception:

If the test runs counter to Ethos and is successful, Ethos is depleted by one.

(A test that merely falls outside of Ethos and is successful, simply taxes Ethos by one, as per the rules for Nature.)

Ethos 0, Ethos 7

Like Nature, you never want your character’s Ethos to get too high or too low.

A rating of 7 indicates that the character now relies far too much on his Ethos, to the point of overzealousness and obsession - possibly driving the character to near fanatical, and often corrupted, pursuit or embodiment of his Ethos.

A rating of 0 represents that the character has become entirely disconnected from his innate cultural mores and values - leading to an extreme bout of ennui, depression or even recklessly irresponsible or destructive behavior.

It’s important to point out that, while the color text used here to describe the fictional effects of hitting the boundaries of Ethos is rather drastic, it is intended that your group tone things down (or up!) in order to suit your theme and setting appropriately.

Ethos Taxed to 0

The same as when Nature is taxed to 0.

If this is the first time the character has taxed his Ethos to 0, the character immediately has one of his Traits exchanged with a new one decided by the group. Mark this Trait with a stylized zero, it will be relevant should the character tax to 0 again.

The Trait should of course be somehow relevant to the activity last taken by the character, and appropriate to the Ethos involved.

If the character has previously hit Ethos 0, then Advance the marked Trait by one level. His condition is deteriorating. Should the marked Trait ever Advance pass level 3 due to 0 Ethos, the character goes out of play permanently… his status as a free agent is no longer tenable.

After the Trait has been dealt with (and assuming it wasn’t Advanced passed Level 3 as described above), maximum Ethos rating is depleted by one, and all tax is removed. Reset the marked Trait’s advancement log if it advanced.

Note that the player should be cautioned against using his marked Trait casually… if he Advances it by normal means, it only brings his character that much closer to the end of the road if/when he hits 0 Ethos again!

Having said that, the marked Trait mechanic is entirely optional - use at your own discretion.

Ethos Maximum Rating 0

If the character’s maximum Ethos rating drops to 0, the character is traumatized: perhaps he sinks into depression, or is trapped in a state of flux while he deals with a bad case of existential angst… or perhaps he falls off the deep end and goes on somewhat of a rampage. Whatever happens, it’s dark - and no good comes of it.

As per the rules for ‘Nature Maximum Rating 0’: At end of session, character is retired until at least the next spring.

Unlike Nature 0 however, in the case of 0 Ethos, there’s an additional consequence.

When the character comes back on stage, the player chooses a Condition, and embarks play with it marked on his character sheet.

Before the session begins, the player should explain what caused the Condition in relation to his withered Ethos.

Ethos 7

When a character hits Ethos 7, and maintains this to the end of a session - he becomes a bit unhinged. He’s now totally obsessed with the object of his Ethos, nothing else matters - the character is out of control, at least where the player is concerned.

Mechanically speaking, if this is the first time the character has hit Ethos 7, the GM invents or picks a Trait appropriate to the situation and replaces it with one of the character’s existing Traits. Mark this Trait with a stylized seven - it will be relevant should the character hit Ethos 7 again.

If the character has previously hit Ethos 7, Advance the marked Trait by one level. The character just got one step closer to meeting his fate, which is usually an untimely end of some spectacular nature, somehow related to the Trait and his obsession with regards to his Ethos. Should the marked Trait ever Advance pass level 3 due to 7 Ethos, the character goes out of play permanently - his end isn’t necessarily heroic, but it certainly should be grisly and violent! ( The player should be warned that should this marked Trait Advance in play via normal means, it may very well hasten his character’s untimely end! )

Once the Trait has been dealt with, and assuming it wasn’t Advanced passed Level 3 as described above, the character then goes off stage for a time (until at least the next spring), thoroughly possessed with naught but pursuing his Ethos in some manner or other. Reset the marked Trait’s advancement log if it advanced.

Similar to Ethos 0, the character does not simply come back from whatever exploits or misdeeds he was involved in whilst off stage with nothing more to show for it. The Player has the choice of having the GM either assign a Condition to the character or introduce an Enemy as per the Enmity Clause.

Before the session begins, the player should explain what caused the Condition or the Enemy, and how it related to his character’s obsessive/compulsive activities in relation to his Ethos while he was out of play.

Note that the marked Trait mechanic is entirely optional - use at your own discretion.

Ethos and Nature

It is intended that Nature exist alongside Ethos.

It works like this:

Ethos is reserved for the sapient races of your setting - humans and gnomes, and vulcans and possibly dragons; while Nature is intended for the merely sentient creatures of your setting - the animals and fauna and monsters.

Note that it’s an either/or thing: either the being is considered sapient (having language, culture and technology - even primitive), and has Ethos; or the being is considered merely sentient (it’s alive and aware, but does not have human-level consciousness), and has Nature.

To be clear: no character, whether PC or NPC, can have both Nature and Ethos.

Ethos “Light”

The introduction for this hack ended with the following statement: “Aside from this arguably subtle change of idiom, Ethos largely follows the same mechanical elements and procedures as per Nature.” …the text then goes on to brazenly introduce a number of somewhat radical changes to the rules as written for Nature!

Not surprisingly, there’s a very good chance these changes might possibly stray too far off left-field to sit comfortably for some groups.

If such be the case, simply ignore the following elements:

Condition and Enemity Clause
Marked Traits
Running counter to Ethos

Doing so has the effect of greatly toning down Ethos to the point where it truly is a simple conceptual/thematic hack. From a strictly mechanical/procedural perspective, dropping those optional elements transforms Ethos into a conservatively clean analog to Nature as written.

For your convenience, an alternative text supporting this more conservative approach to Ethos can be viewed here.

Rafe · July 1, 2010, 10:12am

So are you looking at one core idiom per race/species with actions that would fall under them? Ex: Hobbits have Kinship. The town’s been burned, but it’s Reggie’s birthday. Speech conflict (maybe against a loud, locally-known naysayer) to rouse everyone’s spirits, celebrate a bit, dust off their hands and get to rebuilding! Nature (Kinship) would be applied. Is that about right, or have I missed the boat?

corey_s · July 1, 2010, 4:54pm

Affirmative!

Initially however, I was thinking that the Pathos descriptor (e.g. Kinship) would be all there is - there wouldn’t be concrete, specific “aspects”, as per Nature. Pathos would thus be interpreted much in the same way as a Trait. Each Pathos might be accompanied by some examples to help show what’s considered appropriate, but wouldn’t have specific/standard aspects.

Thanks to some dialog in the original thread, I quickly started worrying that doing it that way might be far too open to interpretation, and thus too easily abused - all too easy for a player to somehow find a way to apply “kinship” to most everything, for example.

So, that’s when I decided Pathos needs concrete aspects just like Nature – as a means of helping constrain and standardize the thematic elements of the descriptor.

… but, I’m still kinda going back-and-forth on the matter. For now, I’m running with aspects - doing so is even less of a departure from Nature; so perhaps easier for people 'round these parts to accept.

Ex: Hobbits have Kinship. The town’s been burned, but it’s Reggie’s birthday. Speech conflict (maybe against a loud, locally-known naysayer) to rouse everyone’s spirits, celebrate a bit, dust off their hands and get to rebuilding! Nature (Kinship) would be applied. Is that about right, or have I missed the boat?

Hobbits: Pathos(Kinship) [sticking together, upholding tradition, supporting family, fullfilling obligation]

So, yep - your example looks like it would fall under sticking together, or perhaps supporting family.

Of course, it’s up to the group/GM to invent Pathos descriptors and affiliated aspects for each of your setting’s races/species - you might not agree with my (first jab) at defining a Pathos for Hobbits.

Cheers!

Paul_B · July 1, 2010, 10:39pm

Soooo…why not just go with Nature (Hobbit), call out your 4-6 descriptors, and call it good?

Rafe · July 1, 2010, 11:04pm

I think he’s looking to ascribe an overarching concept to it, so players can look and go “Ah, okay. I get the main ‘thing’ these guys are about, and X, Y and Z are specific descriptors associated with it.”

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 12:24am

Good call, I was waiting for someone to point that out.

At the very least, it’s nothing more than a bit of ‘scaffolding’ to help ease the process of defining aspects, while also providing a bit of overt thematic focus as well - something to hang your hat on, so to speak.

But…:

… yeah, what Patrick said.

Also: the original/initial idea was to not provide specific, concrete aspects with each Pathos. It was to be a bit ‘looser’, and up for ‘real-time interpretation’ at the table.

Under the alternative “loose” Pathos method, each Pathos would have a short summary paragraph that contextualized the Pathos, and provided some examples to help players know how/when to appropriately apply it in play. Similar to a Trait. There’d be no specific: x, y and z aspects.

Paul_B · July 2, 2010, 10:21am

Huh…we already use Nature that way, as kind of a loose “what mice are good at” thing. But we have good communication and nobody has tried to abuse that. I can see by post 3, however, you’re already seeing the benefits of at least starting with concrete descriptors.

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 3:22pm

Wow, cool - so you guys play with, simply: ‘Nature(Mouse)’, and that’s it - no aspects?

I can see by post 3, however, you’re already seeing the benefits of at least starting with concrete descriptors.

If you respond with an affirmative to the question above - you’ll have managed to inspire confidence that aspect-less Pathos might actually work! I might start radical (aspect-less), and only go conservative (aspects) if things get too fuzzy in actual play. (however I will continue to use Nature as written - with concrete, specific aspects)

Should be easy for me to playtest - I’ll start ‘small’, simply continue to play MG rather than within an entirely different setting; but will start a new story with new characters; introducing Pathos from the start:

Mice and Weasels both have language, culture and technology… they’re clearly sapient. They get Pathos. The other denizens of the forest don’t, they’re merely sentient - they have Nature.

Mice: Pathos(Caution)

Weasels: Pathos(Treachery)

{toying with the idea that the weasel cousins (ferret, martin, mink, sable) have the same Pathos - but, being inferior in the fiction… will have a Pathos cap (max of 5 or 6 rather than 7)… “iffy”, I know… just brainstorming}

Digression, somewhat related to your first question in this thread:

Nature(Mouse) vs. Pathos(Caution), or Nature(Hobbit) vs. Pathos(Kinship)

… whether using aspects or not - personally, I have an immediate impression that there is in fact a fairly substantial thematic difference between Nature and Pathos - enough so, that differentiating the two concepts isn’t entirely useless or redundant.

Paul_B · July 2, 2010, 6:27pm

Okay! Okay, I get where you’re coming from now. You’re basically trying to key into a …something, a value maybe, rather than a more generalized “this is what we all think Hobbits are like” type of thing. It’s a worthy hack, much narrower and focused than factory-spec Nature. I have no idea what sort of game would emerge – one would assume much narrower and focused.

Am I reading that PCs would have a pathos while NPCs and critters and whatever would have a nature? Like you get either but not both?

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 7:09pm

Exactly.

Your use of the word value is right on: think ethos. (Ethos might even be a better name for it than Pathos.)

e·thos
n.
The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement:

Also, just as you said: “This is what we all think Hobbits are like”, is damned difficult to get general approval or agreement on. But, “Here’s one_thing_in_particular that Hobbits are like, totally all_about”, I think is much less intimidating and divisive.

It’s a worthy hack, much narrower and focused than factory-spec Nature. I have no idea what sort of game would emerge – one would assume much narrower and focused.

It’s still totally theoretical - so I’m not too sure what it’d feel like in play yet; probably depends a whole lot on the play-style of the group, and the setting in which Pathos was being utilized.

I think it’ll definitely help for settings in which the PCs comprise more than one single narrow ‘type’: whether the ‘type’ is race/species, caste/class or whatever. Mouse Guard proper has one character type: Guardmouse. All player-characters are mice, all player-characters are guards. Nature is awesome for that sort of focus; quite tricky with something more generic or heterogenous.

Am I reading that PCs would have a pathos while NPCs and critters and whatever would have a nature? Like you get either but not both?

Either one, but not both - correct.

However, its not so much a PC vs. NPC thing - it’s more strictly a matter of sapience vs. sentience.

But by all means modify according to taste!

Paul_B · July 2, 2010, 7:23pm

I think it would still be to my taste to fold an ethos – good word – into a broader Nature. Or perhaps simply make sure that an ethos is always one of your 4-6 Nature aspects. I say this because I’m having trouble envisioning the tension that’s the genius of the Nature mechanic: You don’t want it too high OR too low, because exceeding either end puts you out of the game. An ethos like, say, Kindred – what does 0 look like? How about 7?

The other inherent tension in Nature is that it’s not something you want to use. It’s your unheroic, basic form. Mice aren’t heroic; guardmice are. So when they rely on Nature (Mouse), they’re being mousy and not badass. I’m not seeing a reason to not use an Ethos, based on that.

Just more food for thought.

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 7:46pm

That’s cool.

I say this because I’m having trouble envisioning the tension that’s the genius of the Nature mechanic: You don’t want it too high OR too low, because exceeding either end puts you out of the game. An ethos like, say, Kindred – what does 0 look like? How about 7?

I haven’t yet gotten my words formulated yet on that topic, so it hasn’t been introduced in the text for the hack yet, unfortunately.

But, put simplistically and summarily - what it looks like - e.g. the “color” - at the extreme ends:

0 == ennui/listlessness
7 == obsession/compulsiveness

0 or 7 - the character buggers off, with an appropriate/suitable/relevant alibi from the player or GM. Poor, poor Smeagol - sure, he still had ‘adventures’, but he was no longer controlled by his player; your character goes a little or alot crazy/unhinged, he’s out of control.

The other inherent tension in Nature is that it’s not something you want to use. It’s your unheroic, basic form. Mice aren’t heroic; guardmice are. So when they rely on Nature (Mouse), they’re being mousy and not badass. I’m not seeing a reason to not use an Ethos, based on that.

Pathos (or if you prefer, Ethos) doesn’t press one way or the other regarding Heroics, specifically.

Honest question though: Have you (or your players) really refrained from using Nature simply because it would make them feel less guard-like and more mousy, even though it was an advantageous or appropriate use from the perspective of the fiction?

Remember that Nature does actually augment some of a Guardmouse’s functions.

Just more food for thought.

Good stuff, thanks!

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 9:06pm

I’ve been chewing on that.

Although I’m not yet thinking this is strictly necessary, an idea that keeps running through my mind is to make acting against Pathos (or ‘Ethos’, but for the sake of consistency within this thread, I’ll stick with the term Pathos) a bit more serious:

Acting against Pathos will deplete it, rather than merely tax it.

(going there, of course brings up the subject of whether I should go all the way, and differentiate between acting against Pathos and acting outside of Pathos - perhaps too fiddly/complex: acting against Pathos depletes it no matter what (success or fail), and taxes it as well, if the test is failed; acting outside of Pathos functions normally, as per the rules for ‘Acting Against Your Nature’; and of course acting within your Pathos stands without change, as per the rules for ‘Acting with your Nature’)

corey_s · July 2, 2010, 9:14pm

For anyone who cares, or at least is kinda following this thread:

Should I call this Pathos, or Ethos?

corey_s · July 3, 2010, 12:02am

Ok - just made a massive update - see the first post.

Also, renamed it from Pathos, to Ethos.

Rafe · July 3, 2010, 4:59am

I like Ethos more.

corey_s · July 3, 2010, 5:05am

Right on, thanks!

I just now finished a 3rd update… I, uh… went a bit aggro - so, yeah… I’ll prolly need some level-headed criticism!

<grin>

corey_s · July 3, 2010, 4:56pm

A new update:

I make a point to explain that the default color text regarding the fictional results when a character hits his Ethos boundaries is intended to be throttled according to the theme/mood of the setting, and the group’s preferences.
The ‘marked Trait’ mechanic is now noted as being optional.
I split the ‘Ethos Burner’ into a different document (still incomplete).

corey_s · July 3, 2010, 4:58pm

{still incomplete}

{disclaimer: the following text likely suffers from all sorts of crazy notions and misconceptions: so, waste time reading at your own risk!}

Ethos Burning

Inventing new Ethos is by no means an easy process. It’ll take time and effort, and quite likely a bit of trial and error. It’s an iterative process, as you refine and rethink your initial ideas until something satisfactory emerges.

Whether you embark on this process on your own, or collaboratively with others, is entirely up to you - but it’s recommended to at least get some feedback from your group before beginning play with your new Ethos.

Ethos creation can be broken down into several distinct steps, listed below in recommended order of approach:

identify Ethos scope
identify Ethos demography
identify Ethos theme
choose Ethos descriptor
determine Ethos aspects

Ultimately however it’s an entirely organic process… after reading the framework provided here, it’s expected you’ll go about things in your own manner. This text attempts to provide some amateurish advice from a somewhat inexperienced Mouse Guard GM/Player, so take it all with a grain of salt - and feel free to accept or discard or change whatever you like. As usual: your mileage may vary.

Before detailing the individual steps offered above, a quick conceptual review is in order. We’ll take another look at the general idea of Ethos - what it’s trying to accomplish; and the fictional elements involved when a character hits the boundaries of Ethos - the squishy color that fills the spaces between the hard mechanics.

The Nature of Ethos

Ethos: A primary distinguishing disposition, character, archetype, behavior or credo - or a fundamental value or purpose - peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, movement, organization or discipline.

The breadth of Ethos is purposeful: to maximize flexibility. This is very important to keep in mind as you’re designing new Ethos, whether for your own custom setting or for an existing setting already established.

You can have a single Ethos for all characters (as per standard Mouse Guard Nature), or you can have a collection of Ethos particular to each major character type or identity group in your setting: you can create an Ethos for each race, or for each social caste, or for each guild, etc… Ethos can be based on zodiac or sunsign, on the elements or seasons, or emotional states. It can be based on archtypical class roles, or professions… or one or more martial/philosophical/supernatural disciplines.

Ultimately, what makes Ethos different than Mouse Guard’s Nature, is that it conceptually operates at a somewhat higher level of abstraction. It’s not so much about lower level, naturally-intrinsic instinct, as it is about higher emotional/cognitive, human-level ideals, goals or mental states.

Ethos is intended to provide a generalized framework for pursuing alternative thematic pathways using the Mouse Guard RPG; as a side effect, it thus lends itself well to settings and stories with a more heterogenous scope: where the player-characters may not necessarily all have to experience the same over-arching meta-conflict.

(Note that if you do choose to implement and support mixed Ethos’, it will have the effect of lessening the shared, tightly-knit, team-based “we’re all in this together” mood inherent in the Mouse Guard RPG, and establishing a more diversified, personal/individual “to each his own path” feel, in addition to whatever other thematic elements your Ethos’ bring to your table.)

Ethos 0, Ethos 7 Revisited

There are several places in the rules text for Ethos that inject a certain degree of atmosphere in respect to the fictional “off stage” results of hitting the boundaries of Ethos. Please understand that this is merely color, and can be adjusted as necessary to better suit your tastes, or to better correspond to the thematic direction of your Ethos’.

Additionally, you are perfectly free to refrain from using any of the mechanical extensions introduced in the rules for Ethos: ‘marked traits’, ‘conditions and enemies’, and ‘running counter to Ethos’. Pick and choose which if any befit the role and gravity of Ethos in your setting.

What finally needs to be stressed with regards to Ethos Burning, is the inherent base dichotomoty of Ethos, how it differs slightly from the inherent dichotomy of Nature, and what it means to hit the boundaries, from a color/flavor perspective.

In Mouse Guard, Nature is a mechanical device for encouraging a particular overriding theme: one of Instinct vs. Adaptability, where the boundaries (Nature 0, Nature 7) represent a struggle between Burnout/Ambivalence vs. Heroism/Duty. (It should be noted that Nature acts somewhat differently for player-character Mice than it does for the other Denizens of the setting. For most GM-utilized characters, whether mouse or weasel, cricket or turtle… Nature is strictly an Instict vs. Adaptability resource; and, in the case of the non-sapient animals, additionally serves as a simplicity mechanism for reducing stat-blocks.)

At the boundaries of Nature - whether 0 or 7 - the same pattern emerges: the character has become “too <otherly>”, and as a result, the player looses his character for a time (until the following spring), while the character goes on to do “<other stuff>”.

Those two variables, “otherly” and “other stuff”, are simply color from the perspective of the mechanics: Mouse Guard supplies the values “mousely” and “humanly” to the <otherly> variable, and supplies some fictional justification of how/why the “otherly” character goes out of play (“too human” [0] or “too mousy” [7]). Similarly, some (albiet limited) example fiction is provided to account for the <other stuff> variable: e.g. what in the world the character is up to that prevents him from patroling (aka: adventuring, or: doing relevant deeds as supports the games premise)?(“too thoughtful/fixated” [0] or “overly settled/cautious” [7]).

The boundaries of Ethos function precisely as described in the above paragraph, with the exception that Ethos is not pre-equipped with appropriately-thematic-to-the-setting values for <otherly> and <other stuff>. It’s left to you to attach the specific fictional relevancies to the hard mechanics, as is appropriate to your setting.

It is important that your Missions contain story elements and objectives which routinely justify and support the purpose behind the mechanics of Nature (Mouse Guard RPG, pgs. 232-235) - the purpose of Nature is to tie the character into the story and setting in such as manner as to create fictional and mechanical tension and conflict. (“Weasels for Peace!” provides a contrived, adhoc example of this idea in operation.)

Identifying Ethos Scope

{to be completed}

Identifying Ethos Demography

{to be completed}

Identifying Ethos Theme

{to be completed}

Choosing Ethos Descriptor

{to be completed}

Determining Ethos Aspects

{to be completed}

Wrapping Up

{incomplete/uneditted}

Your stories and focus should generally be “about” the struggle against hitting the boundaries of one’s Ethos. Struggle is a key word here: there must be plenty of opportunity for the players to utilize the “Acting With Your Ethos” mechanic. Likewise… there must be frequent opportunity to make use of the “Tapping Against Your Ethos” mechanic. Fail one or both of these devices (viva la ‘system matters!’), and the mechanics will fail to support the premise - aka “weaksauce”. (… which isn’t necessarilly bad-wrong, but it would likely play out somewhat 1-dimensional and predictable, to the point of probably getting boring fairly quickly. I imagine you’d probably have to sometimes actually play a session or two before you really notice whether you got weaksauce, but those sessions just might have been what was needed to concieve of a better setting <-> mechanics <-> ethos arrangement (aka: the premise).

You could take the above paragraph and replace all instances of ‘Ethos’ with ‘Nature’, and it would remain accurate. Ethos just gets a little “closer to the metal” than does Nature. Nature comes pre-equipped with premise; but with Ethos, it is left up to you to hang your own premise over the structure that the rules establish.

There’s the big thing: perhaps “Ethos Burning” is just another name for “Nature Toolkit”.

It is hoped that this paper helps in some way for making it easier to grok the essence of Nature, and apply it your own MG hacks. The Mouse Guard RPG rules system - and it’s intrinsic conceptual/mechanical elements - is too much of diamond to be trapped within the single gem of the Mouse Guard setting. The community should be creating more setting Hacks and Ports! (e.g. Realm Guard!), the game can be played and enjoyed within so many different genres and fictional guises that it’s a bummer it’s not yet very easy to do a fairly quick bit of “Setting Burning” to get a new “X Guard” campaign in play for your group on a whim.

{future topics(???): Organization Burning, Patrol Burning, Mission Burning, Skills Burning, Conflict Burning, Denizens Burning, etc?}

[b]Example Ethos[/b]

{incomplete/uneditted}

{using the steps and techniques defined in this text, demonstrate the creation of a new Ethos - called “Instinct” - in which we create an accurate Nature analog.

{a few example ethos, currently without aspects or premise:}

Ethos: A primary distinguishing disposition, character, archetype, behavior or credo - or a fundamental value or purpose - peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, movement, organization or discipline.

{ ‘behavior’ of a ‘people’, where the people are based on animals }

single-Ethos, called ‘Instinct’: Mouse, Cricket, Bear, Weasel

{ ‘disposition’ of a ‘people’, where the people are based on animals }

mixed-Ethos, called Nature:
Mice: Caution
Weasels: Tyranny

{ ‘character’ of a ‘people’, where the people are based on fantasy races }

mixed-Ethos, called ‘Ethos’:
Dwarves: Tenacity
Elves: Empathy
Goblins: Treachery
Hobbits: Kinship
Humans: Ambition
Orks: Hatred

{ ‘archetype’ of a ‘discipline’, where the discipline is based on the abstract concept of ‘class’, a well-known convention in many RPGs}

single-Ethos, called ‘Class’: Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Cleric

{ ‘credo’ of a ‘movement’, or ‘fundamental purpose’ of a ‘discipline’, based on a common basic trope seen in many fiction and RPGs}

single-Ethos, called ‘Alignment’: Order, Balance, Chaos

{ a ‘disposition’ of a ‘people’, where the people are based on individuals involved in uncertain and stressfull or traumatizing life-or-death situations [think personal horror settings]}

universal-Ethos, called ‘Fear’

corey_s · July 3, 2010, 9:07pm

{Ethos “Light” - alternative, no-frills version}

Nature

In the Mouse Guard RPG, the Nature Ability represents critters’ intrinsic/natural instincts. It’s what they are most likely to be seen doing most often in their natural habitat, under normal circumstances.

Guardmice are a somewhat different breed than the usual denizen of the forest however, and Nature serves, additionally, as a game device to promote the conflict between Instinct and Duty.

This thematic mechanism works perfectly within the admirably tightly-focused Mouse Guard setting, but can be somewhat vexing and problematic for the would-be MG ‘hacker’ when trying to “port” the Nature semantics to a more generic, looser setting - such as in the case of, say, a high-fantasy setting in which the ‘patrol’ might consist of several species/race.

It might also be that one’s group simply wishes to experiment with somewhat different thematic elements, while still remaining largely within the Nature framework and mechanics - so as not to diverge too far from the rules as written.