Gems of Vice Series

[jmizzle7]

I know what greed means. I'm saying that it does what greed typifies in a pretty good way. One possible way to improve it to embody greed even more would be to add at the end, "Lose all quanta of this type at the end of your turn."

[Kael Hate]

I know what greed means. I'm saying that it does what greed typifies in a pretty good way. One possible way to improve it to embody greed even more would be to add at the end, "Lose all quanta of this type at the end of your turn."

I think Scrooge when I think greed, he isn't going to spend that quanta even if he is going to lose it.

[jmizzle7]

What is your suggestion to improve it if it is such an incorrect interpretation of greed? You haven't given your suggestion thus far.

[Kael Hate]

What is your suggestion to improve it if it is such an incorrect interpretation of greed? You haven't given your suggestion thus far.

Let me think

Has to target the opponent, because they are the one submitting to the vice.
They have to hold on to something and not let it go unless it is to the expense of something else

greed   /grid/  Show Spelled[greed]  Show IPA
–noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

SUGGESTION

Gem of Greed
//The opponent is burdened by the vice of Greed
Greed: When an Opponent spends Quanta he loses 2 random Quanta.
alter
Greed: When an Opponent spends Quanta he loses the same in random Quanta.


- This gives the feeling the opponent is greedy, unable to give up his quanta freely for something else. but doesn't lock him out of the game.
- The Alter version taxes his greed the more hie has to spend and is bit better on Lucifern and 1 cost activators.

[moomoose]

the thing about vices is that some of them are empowering and others are dis-empowering, it would be difficult and not entirely accurate for all of them to be directly attributed to the other player.  envy for example is another one where *i* am envious of the opponent, but .  the two ways that the cards can be played are essentially "i have a vice that makes me powerful" (like wrath) and "my opponent has a vice that makes him weak" (like disloyalty).

[Kael Hate]

the thing about vices is that some of them are empowering and others are dis-empowering, it would be difficult and not entirely accurate for all of them to be directly attributed to the other player.  envy for example is another one where *i* am envious of the opponent, but .  the two ways that the cards can be played are essentially "i have a vice that makes me powerful" (like wrath) and "my opponent has a vice that makes him weak" (like disloyalty).

A vice should never benefit you but instead be a disadvantage to the opponent A Virtue should always benefit you rather than debilitate the opponent. This is the nature of virtue and vice. To present them otherwise is to ignore the nature of the them and thus ignoring the effect you are intending in the series.

[moomoose]

there are benefits to having vices, thats not to say there a great thing from a moral perspective.  greed for example has the most obvious practical benefits.  in contrast, being moral can lead to harming yourself, altruism is a virtue, but it can also lead to you being a doormat for everyone else. morally great, but practically not great.

the intent of the series is that there are vices and they have effects that relate to the vice named.  some vices are powerful by definition, wrath for example.  if vices were only able to be inflicted on the opponent, what would the card be? "your opponents weapon swings with rage and does 5 more damage to you each turn"?  since its a vice, it cant empower you, but wrath doesnt have any immediately connective negative side effects, aside from being morally wrong. 

some vices just dont lend themselves to debuffs, but rather should be buffs from a practical standpoint.

[Kael Hate]

there are benefits to having vices, thats not to say there a great thing from a moral perspective.  greed for example has the most obvious practical benefits.  in contrast, being moral can lead to harming yourself, altruism is a virtue, but it can also lead to you being a doormat for everyone else. morally great, but practically not great.

the intent of the series is that there are vices and they have effects that relate to the vice named.  some vices are powerful by definition, wrath for example.  if vices were only able to be inflicted on the opponent, what would the card be? "your opponents weapon swings with rage and does 5 more damage to you each turn"?  since its a vice, it cant empower you, but wrath doesnt have any immediately connective negative side effects, aside from being morally wrong. 

some vices just dont lend themselves to debuffs, but rather should be buffs from a practical standpoint.

wrath   /ræθ, rɑθ or, especially Brit., rɔθ/  Show Spelled[rath, rahth or, especially Brit., rawth]  Show IPA
–noun
1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire.
2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.

I would make this an ability that increases attack power at the cost of lfe or quanta forced on the opponent. Wrath or Violence is unreasonable and unjustified and the action behind it costs the user of wrath more than the gain. This is why it is a Vice.


al·tru·ism   /ˈæltruˌɪzəm/  Show Spelled[al-troo-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).

When used as a Virtue is to put the welfare of others before your own. The net gain is that support of a group will be more effective than a single entity in the same situation. Ie Tank for the Medic and archer and the overall effectiveness is increased.

Virtues improve the overall gain and because of this are consider morally good. Vices are a loss or burden and as such are morally wrong.  Some things are subjective, like survival of the fittest. Choosing to eliminate components is considered morraly wrong, but supporting the components that will have the longest projected benefit is morally right, but both are aspects of survival of the fittest.

[moomoose]

i think were going to have to agree to disagree.  moral and practical applications of vices and virtues are two different things.

[Kael Hate]

i think were going to have to agree to disagree.  moral and practical applications of vices and virtues are two different things.

vice1    /vaɪs/  Show Spelled[vahys]  Show IPA
–noun
1. a fault, defect, or shortcoming

If you wish to call the series "of Vice", I encourage you to respect the name and meaning of the name more, otherwise they have no meaning and could be just any mechanic on a card.

[moomoose]

except that the terms are vices.  i think you are trying way, way too hard.  (to specify, too hard to pin down vices and virtues effects to a very small subset of their potential uses, alot of people seemed to share this sentiment with your comments on the shards of virtue.  vices and virtues are themes and the effects are related to name of the card, and dont necessarily have to fit into a neat little box of "good for you" and "bad for your opponent" although they may have many cards that lend themselves to that, it is not a requirement in my opinion)