Cannot Harm Innocents except for Euthanasia purposes

[edk926]

Say you have a healer/doctor who devote themselves to helping others and has a general pacifism where they don't normally harm innocents. The problem with modern medical science or fantasy magic is that you can only do so much to cure a person. Some things are beyond our reach like some cancers and other terminal diseases. If that healer/doctor was devoted to end suffering, maybe they would want to euthanize someone that's dying and in great pain.

What kind of modifier would that be to 'Cannot harm innocents' (or 'Cannot kill' for that matter)? Would it depend on the TL?

[Ashtagon]

Except in a very specialised campaign, that's essentially just a zero-point feature.

The basic disadvantage is -10 points. This would nominally be a perk, but I'm not sure "being able to perform a mercy killing" is worth even one point, when you could easily just have another PC perform the kill, blaming it on gremlins if need be.

Socially, being willing to perform euthanasia might incur a Reputation, but that's a separate issue.

[Buzzardo]

I'd say it invalidates the disadvantage, because that kind of Pacifism is absolute. It represents someone who cannot bring themselves to harm an innocent (or kill someone) under any circumstances, ever.

I'd suggest Vow: Relieve Suffering or, for doctors, Vow: Hippocratic Oath (or one of its umpteen variations).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by edk926

Say you have a healer/doctor who devote themselves to helping others and has a general pacifism where they don't normally harm innocents. The problem with modern medical science or fantasy magic is that you can only do so much to cure a person. Some things are beyond our reach like some cancers and other terminal diseases. If that healer/doctor was devoted to end suffering, maybe they would want to euthanize someone that's dying and in great pain.

What kind of modifier would that be to 'Cannot harm innocents' (or 'Cannot kill' for that matter)? Would it depend on the TL?

True euthanasia should not be classed as harm.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

True euthanasia should not be classed as harm.

I agree with Donny Brook. If allowing someone to continue suffering in an incapacitated state can be called harm, then not helping them to come to a clean end would be, by definition, doing harm.

Cannot Harm Innocents would almost require them to assist in the unfortunate's end.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I agree with Donny Brook. If allowing someone to continue suffering in an incapacitated state can be called harm, then not helping them to come to a clean end would be, by definition, doing harm.

Cannot Harm Innocents would almost require them to assist in the unfortunate's end.

Careful, lest you turn a trait that prevents one from doing things (Pacifism) to one that demands doing them (Sense of Duty/Duty/CoH/etc.).

[Zemyla]

Isn't euthanasia something that's asked for by the person who wants to die, or else something that's asked for by the family of someone who can't ask for themselves and probably will never be able to?

In either case, you'd pretty much be required to make sure that there was literally nothing else that could be done for them before you gave them the good death they were asking for.

It is a thorny ethical question, though.

[Bruno]

There's also "Mercy Killing", for severely wounded people in battlefield conditions. The people deciding whether to do this are rarely family members or other caregivers, and it's pretty controversial today (I'm pretty sure the modern US military considers it murder). But today we have battlefield surgery, effective nursing care, antibiotics, prosthesis, and generally much better hope for the wounded. It's a much different prospect in the mud of a tenth-century battlefield.

[Railstar]

For "Cannot Harm Innocents" I wouldn't apply a modifier at all.

We can debate whether euthanasia is good or bad, but if the character genuinely thinks of it as helping the person (and the person being euthanized agrees...), then I'd consider it to count as following the "spirit of the law" as far as Cannot Harm Innocents is concerned, by seeking to spare them pain and suffering.

Not sure about "Cannot Kill", but generally I would say if the character takes that moral position that euthanasia is OK is simply extra depth.

[Flyndaran]

I feel it completely depends on whether the specific player would abuse the ability to perform euthanasia.

Oh look, I stabbed him specifically here when defending myself. That's going to get infected and eventually kill him, so I guess it's only humane to stab him again to end his suffering.
I think we all have met players that would try that tactic, possibly without realizing just how munchkin-y it would be.

It also matters whether they'd make certain after the fact that the person dying was really dying and no cure or treatment existed that maybe they just didn't know about at the time. Guilt could make for great RP, but would not be good for the character's mental health.