Jump to content

Patterns in what triggers a weakness


Edgedancer

Recommended Posts

Being involved with the Reckoner’s RP I did a lot of thinking about weaknesses, both for my own Epics and to a lesser extend for those of others. I always wondered if a weakness fits with what we’ve seen from the books. In those musings I noticed some trends, some of which can be spread across all weakness and with some it’s just that none of them go against it, even if they are closely related to the topic at hand. Naturally, the small sample size means a lot of this in conjecture but given that we now know there’s some order to weakness there might be even more. On to the list!

  • The root trauma: This one is a given, the books downright tell us that these roots exist. I just want to take the chance to point out that in my opinion the term “fear” as used in the books isn’t ideal and if anything oversimplifies the matter. Looking at the known origin of weaknesses we know they always come from something in the Epics past that left a scar on them and not just something they just happen to be afraid of like spiders. Even more looking at Mitosis, the Epic who’s reason for being written was mostly to hint towards the fact that weaknesses are connected to their past, his weakness didn’t really come from fear. He hated his situation in life and it ate him up from the inside but I wouldn’t exactly call that fear. Just wanted to get it out of my system that I like the term (psychological) trauma more in this context.
  • Generalization: Pretty much what it say on the tin. Weaknesses are connected to an event but can be triggered without all the details matching up. E.g. Megan reacts to fire not burning houses, Newton doesn’t need to be complimented by her parents, Steelheart didn’t have to be confronted by that one specific guy etc. A part of this is also that weaknesses can’t really disappear, the brand that Sourcefield was poinsioned with as a child may be out of business but that doesn’t mean similar drinks can’t be created.
  • Lack of intent: From what we have seen it doesn’t matter what someone is thinking while doing something or why they do it. Only what they do seems important to triggering weaknesses. E.g. Steelheart had no clue what he actually did, when he pulled the trigger but the explosion still counted as his attack and could harm him. The compliment David gave Newton was obviously insincere, yet it still allowed him to kill her.
  • External/lack of control: This is admittedly one point I’m less sure about and it might simply come from the lack of data points, but no weakness we have seen requires the Epic to think something or do anything specific, it’s always just something around them, be it an object, people with certain qualities etc. Always something they have no control over, which also plays into the lack of intent.
  • Repeat: This one is impossible to prove and more something that seems logical. I simply think that if an Epic is in the situation that his weakness originates from, then his weakness should trigger, which puts a limit on how abstract a weakness can be in relation to the event in question.

 

These are the patterns I noticed and I while again there is little hard proof but no Epic breaks these rules and they make sense with the theme of trauma/fear that weaknesses are connected with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of abstract weaknesses, I admit up front I'm a little biased, considering at least one of my Epics has one that seems more abstract than usual. And I freely admit I could be totally wrong about this, but anywho...

As far as abstract weaknesses go, I agree that there HAS to be a strong emotional connection between the trauma and the weakness. (You're right: "trauma" is a much more fitting term; it connotes something snapping, mentally, which is what happened to Epics to give them their fears.) A boy who fears his abusive father won't connect the brand of Italian leather boots he wears to the trauma, but he probably would connect someone taking off their belt.

As someone familiar with more random/abstract triggers, I'm more inclined to believe that weaknesses are allowed to be a bit more abstract. David does mention early on that weaknesses include certain patterns, numbers of attackers, foods, and even age in one case. Why? If an Epic who was weak to, say, a repeating diamond pattern gained that fear the night her husband nearly beat her to death and she was facedown on a diamond pattern rug, then why isn't her weakness being face down, or a man holding something heavy and blunt, or being called whatever names he was surely calling her at the time? The only answer I have is that the human psyche is a strange thing, and different people fixate on different aspects of the same situation. Another woman might very well fixate on the insults or anything else, but this one fixated on the pattern of the rug.

I'm with you on nearly everything else, especially the repeat part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like this.

Although, based on your last suggested caveat, I'd have to change Iconoclast's back story to fit :P so I'll agree with everything but that.

Given the nature of trauma in general, I'd argue that not every trauma is even repeatable. If a police officer was traumatized by the night they had to shoot an armed robber, that would be a repeatable trauma. If a first responder was traumatized by 9/11, there are elements of that trauma that are repeatable, but the exact trauma is a one-time event. There are so many factors that made 9/11 as impacting as it was--the shock of it, the fact it was the first foreign terror attack on American soil, the circumstances surrounding it--that repeating the exact event is all but impossible. If we're arguing that if a trauma is repeatable then repeats should trigger the Epic's weakness, then I'm on board. If we're arguing that a trauma HAS to be repeatable to qualify as a weakness, then I'll have to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of abstract weaknesses, I admit up front I'm a little biased, considering at least one of my Epics has one that seems more abstract than usual. And I freely admit I could be totally wrong about this, but anywho...

As far as abstract weaknesses go, I agree that there HAS to be a strong emotional connection between the trauma and the weakness. (You're right: "trauma" is a much more fitting term; it connotes something snapping, mentally, which is what happened to Epics to give them their fears.) A boy who fears his abusive father won't connect the brand of Italian leather boots he wears to the trauma, but he probably would connect someone taking off their belt.

As someone familiar with more random/abstract triggers, I'm more inclined to believe that weaknesses are allowed to be a bit more abstract. David does mention early on that weaknesses include certain patterns, numbers of attackers, foods, and even age in one case. Why? If an Epic who was weak to, say, a repeating diamond pattern gained that fear the night her husband nearly beat her to death and she was facedown on a diamond pattern rug, then why isn't her weakness being face down, or a man holding something heavy and blunt, or being called whatever names he was surely calling her at the time? The only answer I have is that the human psyche is a strange thing, and different people fixate on different aspects of the same situation. Another woman might very well fixate on the insults or anything else, but this one fixated on the pattern of the rug.

I'm with you on nearly everything else, especially the repeat part.

(Must resist snark bait... must resist snark bait... :ph34r: )

I'm confused, you say you disagree with me but nothing in you example actually contradicts my points. :huh:

 

I quite like this.

Although, based on your last suggested caveat, I'd have to change Iconoclast's back story to fit :P so I'll agree with everything but that.

The last point does lack possible evidence, so I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and don't bring it up as long as it isn't to random. Everything else I at least point out. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Must resist snark bait... must resist snark bait... :ph34r: )

I'm confused, you say you disagree with me but nothing in you example actually contradicts my points. :huh:

 

The last point does lack possible evidence, so I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and don't bring it up as long as it isn't to random. Everything else I at least point out. :ph34r:

 

(Don't take the snark bait! :o Bait, snark or not, KILLS FISH! (Not a word about how it's not the bait itself, but the act of being dragged out of the water and rendered unable to breathe, that kills them. :P)) 

 

Don't I? Hurm. Perhaps we should expand the definition of "disagree." :ph34r: (Or I could just admit after rereading the original post that we actually seem to agree on everything. :P

Edited by TwiLyghtSansSparkles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...