Some negative trait ideas for Rome

I have some idea for some very historically realistic common negative traits

Divorced-With this man's luck with women what man would follow him into battle? Less likely to have children ((very realistic for Rome))

Satirist-People don't like being told how that their way of life is wrong, no matter how much divergence it has gained from the way of the ancestors -3 to influence, 10% less likely to win offices

Wife is an actress-Every Legionary has seen this man's wife performing, why has it not occured to this man to marry within his station? 10% less likely to win senatorial offices

Speculator-What type of man invests in slaves when there are citizens to hire?!!!! -5 influence, +15% to trade income, +15% to farming output, +5 to squalor

Mocks the Gods-"Why does this man publicly declare that the Gods are fake? Before his soldiers right before battle?" +10% to chances of gaining office, -1 Morale to all troops on the battlefield, -1 influence

Traditionalist-"This man has not only made all men hate him for excorciating their current values, but also all ladies hate him by insisting they should be in the hosue instead of in their shops and their professions, he furthermore regularly insults anyone engaged in trade, or lending, or anyone not born to their station"

Populares-"Thinks land owners should be kicked out of the senate and replaced with hard working good honest commercial investors"

Optimate-"Thinks all commercial investors should stay that way and out of the senate and perhaps even be declassed!"

Perverted Nutcase-"the Senate and People of Rome where shocked when this man married his own sister, tried to put up his horse Incitatus for elections, and started arguing with statues"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

Populares-"Thinks land owners should be kicked out of the senate and replaced with hard working good honest commercial investors"

Optimate-"Thinks all commercial investors should stay that way and out of the senate and perhaps even be declassed!"

---

These are already in EBI.

Quote:

---

Perverted Nutcase-"the Senate and People of Rome where shocked when this man married his own sister, tried to put up his horse Incitatus for elections, and started arguing with statues"

---

Since it's impossible to marry a sister to a brother in the M2:TW engine, I don't think this trait is going to make it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

These are already in EBI.



Since it's impossible to marry a sister to a brother in the M2:TW engine, I don't think this trait is going to make it.

---

Really? Well congratulations to the team and I have a few more suggestions

Pimp-"Honest men leave certain professions to women, he may pay the penalty for his choice of income"-6 Influence, Ineligable for all offices, +10% trading income

Son in Power-"This man owns nothing, and before the law one does not aproach him, one aproaches his father, so who exactly would have business dealings with him?"-5% trade income -5% farming income +1 influence

Raised by his mother-"Although his mother may or may not have done a great job all must ask where his father was, and why his family has nothing to do with the custom of the ancestors?"-3 influence, 10% less likely to achieve senatorial office

Reunficator of Alexandros' empire, when you own all land that Alexander owned as a Diadochi State.

"This man is truely a son of the gods, he conquered all that Alexander posessed, all hail the Basileus!"

Yeah, skullhead and then +10 to all...

Still not a Roman trait though (at least the way you put it). I really like the "satirist" one from the OP.

Rômaioktonoi

"This man really hates Romans. He imagines the crushing of Latin bones while eating, the blood of Latins when bathing, and dreams of murdering the lot of interlopers. Hellas belongs to the Hellens and so does the rest of the world! This man might be considered dangerously imbalanced if he didn't like doing his job so much and were left to his own devices."

Horatius - may be an obvious one, but was perverted nutjob a reference specifically to Caligula? How often did things like that happen in the Roman world before Caligula?

There is some traits that you mention already on Eb1, like the Optimates, like the Popularis, like Mocks the Gods, these ones i belive is certain, and the are some others im not sure but i belive i already seen then in EB1.
My point is also this arent new traits.
like Raised by his mother, although there is Mother in law for instance. there is alot. why you dont take a look at the traits in EB first?! just a sugestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

Horatius - may be an obvious one, but was perverted nutjob a reference specifically to Caligula? How often did things like that happen in the Roman world before Caligula?

---

Maybe not even during Caligula's reign - Caligula: Insane or Arrogant?

I do like the descriptions in this thread, but some of them read like the tabloid version of history.

Entourage: This man has become too dependent on his advisors and must consult them on even the smallest detail... some have even began to question if he is really in control. -10% movement -1 when attacking -1 influence +2 management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

Horatius - may be an obvious one, but was perverted nutjob a reference specifically to Caligula? How often did things like that happen in the Roman world before Caligula?

---

I admit that is the wrong time period, but is it really Rome without Caligula? :beam:

There are some horrible emperors who acted like Caligula, Principate anyway, Dominate Emperors of course claimed they were divine :book:

Quote:

---

There is some traits that you mention already on Eb1, like the Optimates, like the Popularis, like Mocks the Gods, these ones i belive is certain, and the are some others im not sure but i belive i already seen then in EB1.
My point is also this arent new traits.
like Raised by his mother, although there is Mother in law for instance. there is alot. why you dont take a look at the traits in EB first?! just a sugestion

---

Having a mother inlaw in your retinue and raised by his mother as a trait are different. Family issues were important in Roman elections, and being abandaned by your father to be raised by your mother would be an issue if it happened (not that unlike today). There are some very prominent Romans who's father had nothing to do with their upbringing, and the topic came up for all of them, although in the case of the Grachii it seems to have helped instead of hurt.

Questions about the father and why he was or wasn't there are very Roman. The Mother Inlaw is universal, she will hound you and set her spies on you in every culture :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

I admit that is the wrong time period, but is it really Rome without Caligula? :beam:

---

The senatorial horse is actually already in the game as a ancillary.

Quote:

---

{senatorial_horse} Senatorial Horse

{senatorial_horse_desc}
And why can't my horse be a senator? You'll hurt his feelings denying him the chance to better himself!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Rômaioktonoi

"This man really hates Romans. He imagines the crushing of Latin bones while eating, the blood of Latins when bathing, and dreams of murdering the lot of interlopers. Hellas belongs to the Hellens and so does the rest of the world! This man might be considered dangerously imbalanced if he didn't like doing his job so much and were left to his own devices."

---

Romaioktonoi effects:
+1 command against Roman
+2 troop morale

And let me give this one:

Philoromaioi

"This man really love Romans, he even imaging if he was born as a Romans, what will he does? and he always try to found some vacation spot in Roma... His obsession with Romans even go to an unhealthy extent, and he often found worshipping Roman figurines and dressed in Senatores' like Toga..."

Philoromaioi effects:
-2 command against Roman
-3 troop morale
-1 influence

EDIT : I rationalize their effects now :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Romaioktonoi effects:
+3 command against Roman
+5 troop morale
+3 influence

And let me give this one:

Philoromaioi

"This man really love Romans, he even imaging if he was born as a Romans, what will he does? and he always try to found some vacation spot in Roma... His obsession with Romans even go to an unhealthy extent, and he often found worshipping Roman figurines and dressed in Senatores' like Toga..."

Philoromaioi effects:
-3 command against Roman
-5 troop morale
-3 influence

---

I don't quite understand why an unhealthy obsession with crushing all things roman would have only positive effects; especialy with troop moral.

Further, why does a general liking romans have only negative effects? If anything I think it should give a positive command bonus when fighting against them; he is afterall much more likely to have studied standard military tactics or to even have studied any particular famous general, maybe the guy he is fighting against.

Gotta use your noggin a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

I don't quite understand why an unhealthy obsession with crushing all things roman would have only positive effects; especialy with troop moral.

Further, why does a general liking romans have only negative effects? If anything I think it should give a positive command bonus when fighting against them; he is afterall much more likely to have studied standard military tactics or to even have studied any particular famous general, maybe the guy he is fighting against.

Gotta use your noggin a bit.

---

The trait of liking romans doesnt give hime necessarly a better understanding of their military, he has negative efects becouse he himself rule over other faction, that isnt roman. This doesnt look good to the people. wont folow a man like that. People who hate romans is actualy more likely to studied roman tactics in order to destroy then... so your argument is also flawed, my friend. maybe the efects are exagerated in both ways, i guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

I don't quite understand why an unhealthy obsession with crushing all things roman would have only positive effects; especialy with troop moral.

Further, why does a general liking romans have only negative effects? If anything I think it should give a positive command bonus when fighting against them; he is afterall much more likely to have studied standard military tactics or to even have studied any particular famous general, maybe the guy he is fighting against.

Gotta use your noggin a bit.

---

Yeah... sorry to give rather extremely exgreggated effects before....:laugh4: BTW, I rationalize their effects now...

According to the M2TW traits, the Xenophilia traits gives your troops lower opinion about you, and you won't try to fight in full potential with someone did you like don't you...

But in M2TW again, the "hate trait" for example, "Hate Fish Smelling Scots" will give your English army additional bonus in command and troop morale against it... that's it... hating something your soldiers hate will gives you extra command and troop morale...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I do like the descriptions in this thread, but some of them read like the tabloid version of history.

---

I do not even like them very much, but apart from that Ludens is right. Tabloid History. I am sorry, but if you want a new trait in, you should document it with historical precedence and examples from Republican Rome, Arche Seluika or whereever you think it should be.
Should the Roman Haters not be spending all their time ranting against Rome to the exlusion of everything else? Blinded by their hatred and somewhat xenophobic? Thus gain negative traits as they waste their time with that and bigotry instead of useful work, governing and leading... making anyone but other Rome-haters despise them. I think we should drop that, as well as the others except possibly raised by mother and reunificator of Alexander's Empire. That one should already be there I think or if not it definately belongs there.

I would like to remind you that "welcoming to strangers" and the like are purely negative traits whereas Rômaioktonoi would be an advanced stage of the positive trait "hates Romans"(or however that trait is called, I'm not shure as I've been plaing palava for some time and in my KH campaign my generals are always the first and only casualty of those cursed Pedexes) It seems that most xenophobic traits are negative whereas most tolerant traits are negative thus Roman-killer should definately be a positive trait

Ps sorry for my spelling and silly grammer, It's late over here ;)

Ca Putt, I was going by the example of how things developed here half a year ago- sending a jab the Rômaioktonoi's way. I do not know if you remember, nor do I know whether you are one of those that thought the spamming, ranting and flaming Romans to the exclusion of everything else and scaring away newcomers to the forum was funny, but I did not.

Excessive xenophobia, bigotry and focusing one one thing to the exclusion of anything else in your hatred is never good. I think in most people it is called "madness" to some degree. That is what I interpret the Rômaioktonoi trait to be. Neither in here or historically is such positive...

Now what happened here is water under the bridge (and Sata is again unignored), but it is an example of what happens when you go too far. So if you want the Rômaioktonoi trait in I believe it should be a Negative trait

Quote:

---

Strategos Machippos to Basileius Anthiocus IX, "Mighty Strategos, our great Arche Seleuka has lost all eastern provinces to a Pahlavan invasion, their horse-archers and cataphracts seem unstoppable. May I suggest we send our Royal Army to stop them and perhaps even turn them back instead of keeping it in reserve in the West? Meanwhile we could perhaps reinforce the garrisions in the South-West against the growing might of the Ptolemaios that your father forced to their knees and who thirsts for vengeance." Strategos Antiochus, " No!!! we must kill those Romans, they have conquered all of Sicily and two provinces of Epieros! They are dangerous! Stupid, illietrate, uncultured and unwashed barbaroi! If we do not beware they will swarm across our borders in a smelly, unwashed horde with their unadorned armies! They are an insult on mankind, they cannot be allowed to live and prosper, Barbaropolis must burn!" *Starts frothing at the mouth*, "Burn it, it must burn! They have overrun Magna Graecha and established footholds just north of Hellas itself! No Strategos, pull all available reserves west instead, we must crush those Barbaroi, the campaign starts next spring and the East will have to fend for itself!".

---

See what I mean? History does have examples almost as rabid as that one because someone in power held personal hatred for someone or something and held preconceptions about it

Quote:

---

One good kick and the whole rotten structure will collapse

---

...

Though again my professionalism as a historian makes me want historical documentation from relevant period and area, and well thought out consequences, before any trait is added. Documentation- documentation- documentation. And since none of these suggested new traits have that, the debate is moot anyway.

offcource blind hatred is not a good thing, neither for your influence nor your preformance as a commander. Not even as a demagogue where it is better to only pretend hating the enemy. my point was merely that the current set of traits suggests that a Roman-killer trait would be a positive trait like "hates Romans" or "hates smelly barbarians" or "hates clever clever greeks"(I seemingly typed Negative instead of positive when reffering to xenophobia traits)
the whole post is only from the perspective of the given traits not my personal opinion on romans nor hate in general.

Actually having the 'hatred' traits lead to some more interesting variants would be cool especially as they age so they would turn crazy by their late years.

I don't know guys, but I think you can hate a people in a way that doesn't make you want to kill them every breath you take or even turn you crazy over a while. This, of course only counts for historical times. Nowaday I'd consider everyone crazy who hates an entire people (racist).

What about "Has served in the Roman Army" if the Romans conquered some of your genuine lands and you are allied to them. I'm thinking about guys like Arminius. But maybe in 272bc that's a bit early? Can you make traits appear only after a certain date?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

What about "Has served in the Roman Army" if the Romans conquered some of your genuine lands and you are allied to them. I'm thinking about guys like Arminius. But maybe in 272bc that's a bit early? Can you make traits appear only after a certain date?

---

Arminius was an actual Roman citizen, not just an ally.

My own idea:

'Pimped his wife' - This man has used his wife to improve his personal wealth by pimping her to a wealthier man.

(Think Cato the Younger)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

Arminius was an actual Roman citizen, not just an ally.

My own idea:

'Pimped his wife' - This man has used his wife to improve his personal wealth by pimping her to a wealthier man.

(Think Cato the Younger)

---

That is a perfect one, although it should perhaps only be possible if the character also has certain wife traits?

For example the traits "wife is charming", "wife is useful" etc etc in order to better replicate the Romans since that would only be possible if the wife was a willing accomplice, so all the negative wife traits i.e. cuckold would make that impossible.

What is the latin equivalent of 'pimped'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

Arminius was an actual Roman citizen, not just an ally.

---

Never said that.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Never said that.:inquisitive:

---

Sorry, I didn't really think about what I said :wall:
:clown:

Difersification for "Over Educated" traits.... (the Cultured - Erudite - Scholastic - Pedantic traits)

Cutured - Erudite and their original line are kept for the unluckiest of moments (like trying to educate a complete fool), but I propose this traits will do better... (after the Cultured trait is gained) to give them some specialisation roleplaying... as I has some toughts about Military Education, and over militaristic traits:

Military fondness
--> This man starts to certainly shown his interest in the tactical art of war... reading lots of war classics, battle poets, even Alexander's diary, and start to inspecting, overseeing, and sometimes even personally lecturing the local garrisons about military tactics, art of war, and proper coordination. At least the local men knows that he could be relied with his theories when he goes to battlefield.
Effects:
+1 command
+2 troop morale

The Art Of War
--> This men was known to spend his fortune to import some scrolls filled with mysterious symbols and pictures, and when we asked, he only said that these aren't magical scrolls, these are the Art of War, made by Sun Tzu, a great man who lived in the land next to the nomads. It doesn't matter how long he won't sleep because he was trying to decode those mysterious scrolls, he will bought more of them when the city has some treasury again.
Effects:
+2 command
+3 troop morale
-1 management

Annoying Military Analyst
--> This men has become military educated to a fault, he was constantly wrote many letters to his even more senior comrades, commenting every battle they've fought has flaws, and they should do the better with blah - blah - blah, and sending blah - blah - blah, instead of blah - blah - blah. Oh yeah, he also try to publish some of his own writings about military tactics, and he brags and insists that about 2000 years from now, his books would be highly revered as the finest book of our culture's best military historical references. That's no surprise if his fellow nobility comrades start signing a petition to let him lead a campaign as far as possible from their ears, so he can stop his habbit to write commentary letters about their actions.
Effects:
+3 command
+2 troop morale
-2 management
-1 influence

I think those are to strong. Are there actualy traits giving +3 troop morale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

I think those are to strong. Are there actualy traits giving +3 troop morale?

---

maybe to explain the fact that he was educated to a fault in military education, we can get him very severe management and trade penalty (-3 management, -20% trade, +200% building costs)

So he will never become a good governor, he must be all times on the field :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

maybe to explain the fact that he was educated to a fault in military education, we can get him very severe management and trade penalty (-3 management, -20% trade, +200% building costs)

So he will never become a good governor, he must be all times on the field :wink:

---

No offense but were there people like that?

As far as I know the true top of Roman Society (which all your family members are) were essentially politicians only with the army temporarily, and were heavily advised by more junior officers who would always be there and so every Roman General would be roughly the same.

It may be more genuinly Roman to have rhetorically educated to a fault involving -3 management, -20% trade +200% building costs with +5 influence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

maybe to explain the fact that he was educated to a fault in military education, we can get him very severe management and trade penalty (-3 management, -20% trade, +200% building costs)

---

Except that in the classical world there was no such a thing as a military academy, and even military "manuals" were pretty simple. Never mind that soldiers of all ages have held that warfare is something you learn by doing. Even if this is merely military pride, I doubt they would feel a morale boost from being led by someone who could cite Xenophon.

For that matter there was no managerial education either, so I doubt someone who was obsessed with military works would be noticeably worse at governing. Classical government was rather amateurish compared to today's culture of professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

It may be more genuinly Roman to have rhetorically educated to a fault involving -3 management, -20% trade +200% building costs with +5 influence?

---

True, but again: the average Roman senator wasn't trained in governing either, so someone specialized in rhetoric would not have missed much.


I understand this thread is meant to be helpful, but keep in mind that EB's trait are part of a system. They didn't add traits willy nilly. Furthermore, trait effects in EB are generally small: the overall result comes from adding up the effect of many traits. This creates realistic characters, rather than persons dominated by a single trait. The traits so-far proposed in this traits do not take this into account.

Nor are any single one of them well documented and realistic for their time, 272 BC - 14 AD. I am sorry- I do not mean to slag you, for the idea and the idea behind some of them could be interesting, but... well, TBH most seem to come from a combination of tabloid history and a pipe dream. No professional historian would take it seriously, sorry.

How about a trait for sons who serve in their father's armies for coming of age or soon there after? That's been known to have happened more than once: Scippio, Alexander, and Hannibal... etc

Perhaps give them a positive effect for supply and morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Nor are any single one of them well documented and realistic for their time, 272 BC - 14 AD. I am sorry- I do not mean to slag you, for the idea and the idea behind some of them could be interesting, but... well, TBH most seem to come from a combination of tabloid history and a pipe dream. No professional historian would take it seriously, sorry.

---

Perhaps you should reread some of the Roman history then since many of these are very accurate.

The Son in Power was active and relevant through the entire Republic and most of the Empire, sons had the same non status as daughters and also had to wait for their old man to die before they could be considered their own, it's called Patria Potestas, they didn't even own the clothes on their back. No professional historian thinks Sons in Power could own anything, except military puculium which was instituted by Augustus after this time period was over.

Divorce was very common for a substantial chunk of the time period, which is why the Late Republic is often considered very lose on morales, in the absense of hard statistics you have to accept the evidence we have, i.e. inscriptions, laws (making divorce for both spouse very easy), and literature.

Roman Satirists did generally insult the general public and elite for the fact that the society advanced past the 6th century BC, and could be extremely unpopular for it, in the original Rome Total War infact they took Juvenal well out of his time and made him an ancillary that subtracted popularity with the people.

Speculators and Traditionalists were very common extremes, and the Mocks the Gods category is especially relevant, they were infact to name a couple of wars the cause of all of the social wars, and the third punic war.

Sorry but I could understand you not wanting a Caligula reference, but the reason I suggested these traits is to make them a little more authentically Roman.

The other traits I have seen are also thouroughly accurate, the Hates Romans, look at Hannibal, the Pimped His Wife look at Cato the Younger.

Here are some of mine:

-Troops failed inspection: local governor was shamed when a legionnaire disgraced the visiting consul/praetor/provincial governor (effects of poor discipline FM in charge of city-negative effect on morale)

-champion of the circus: this man is a master horserider and has won numerous victories in the circus, making him a celebrity of the this locale (increase to influence-must be in city with a circus for a set period of time)

-Magistrate: this military tribune has been assigned to micromanage the troops in this city for the governor, in addition to police the locals of this city. (this was inspired by the antagonist in the movie ben-hur, who was tribune of Judea and policed it for a decade while supervising governors regularly switched out. there should be some minor management and influence boosts to encourage a senate run)

-Never been to Rome: this man has never been to Rome, never played in senate politics, but yet remains true to Rome's principles and has shed endless amounts of blood to defend her honor. (character must be 40, be a veteran, and have never been to rome-negative effects on influence, positive effects on morality, management)