Some negative trait ideas for Rome

[athanaric]

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

[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."

[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?

[Knight of Heaven]

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

[Ludens]

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.

[Dieu Le Fera]

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.

[Macilrille]

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.

[Ca Putt]

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 ;)

[Macilrille]

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

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

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.

[Horatius]

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?

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

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

[bobbin]

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

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

{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!

[Cute Wolf]

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

[Blxz]

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.

[Knight of Heaven]

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

[Cute Wolf]

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.... 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...