[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Pacifism

[Kubby]

Isn't this "each trait should cost the same if its available" tenet already violated in the Basic set?

The value of the accessibility limitation depends outright on how limiting it is in the given setting.

Same goes for, let's say, Reputations (the cost of reputation amongst a given group depends on how large and how often encountered the group is in the setting)

Wildcard skills make broad skillsets cheaper in genres where broad skillsets are expected (that wasn't the stated aim of Wildcard skills, but that's what they do).

[ericthered]

Come to think of it, Monster Hunters doesn't have any pacifism traits on its templates, but Vow(never kill a human) is all over the place. If you want some specific type of pacifism, you can probably take it as a vow. CHI and Self Defense Only could be run as vows (and high value vows at that). Total Pacifism would be a vow if not for its point value, but I can't disagree that in the overwhelming majority of games, it completely worth it.

[Kalzazz]

Cannot Harm Innocents is semi common disad as it fits more Heroic type characters

Reluctant Killer I find rarely taken and then only by characters who likely will never fight anyone directly anyway

-4 on Attacks vs a large class of enemies plus getting more or less removed from play if you do kill one? All for -5

I don't think I've seen any of the other options ever taken

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Cannot Harm Innocents is semi common disad as it fits more Heroic type characters

Reluctant Killer I find rarely taken and then only by characters who likely will never fight anyone directly anyway

-4 on Attacks vs a large class of enemies plus getting more or less removed from play if you do kill one? All for -5

I don't think I've seen any of the other options ever taken

Based on the description, I'd say Reluctant Killer is mainly for NPCs or being a required disadvantage for PCs in a gritty game.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That doesn't seem to be the case with Reluctant Killer, though.

I'm not sure about that. Reluctant Killer does not come with exceptions for being extremely afraid or angry (which are circumstances under which normal modern people are much more often able to kill others), and it also doesn't allow a Will roll or Self-Control roll to overcome the effect. The complete inability to Aim under such circumstances is most likely also excessive.

Then there is also the severe mental breakdown afterwards, with no possibility of avoiding it (even in the best possible case, it lasts for three entire days!). For example, no one who has Reluctant Killer would be able to spend significant effort on hiding a the evidence after having killed someone.

[CeeDub]

Some variant of Pacifism (usually Cannot Harm Innocents) is on the sheet of every one of my characters who isn't a dungeon fantasy-style murder hobo or otherwise at least borderline sociopathic.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Setting dependant of course. In games where indirect killing is difficult, this should be worth a bit more. Like maybe -5 points.

In games where the killing has to be up close and personal, it's basically worth even more, like say in Dungeon Fantasy.

Even where most combat is hand-to-hand I still say it's a Quirk because it's just a roleplaying trait and any gamer worth their dice is going to figure 17 different ways around it.

For example, you can't kill anyone yourself, but you've got no problem:

* distracting the bad guys or providing some sort of non-lethal support while your allies do the killing.

* ordering your hench-things to do the killing for you.

* conveniently ignoring the fact that certain chains of events will ultimately result in bad guys getting wiped out. ("Oops, I knocked that rock loose, sure hope it doesn't maybe start an avalanche." or "I just jammed the door shut to prevent the bad guys from pursuing me. Who would have thought that they'd die from the smoke and flames from the fire my buddies set? Pity that there was only one way out of that sealed room. . .")

[Pursuivant]

Three other possible Pacifism variants:

Rules of Engagement: Sort of falls between a Code of Honor, Duty, Reprogrammable, or Vow. You will not inflict any degree of harm greater than what the mission requires - as specified by your employer or superiors. Depending on the mission, you might be prevented from inflicting any sort of injury on certain classes of targets or be limited in the amount or type of injury you can inflict.

As a guess, I'd say it's worth -5 points, or maybe -10 if you've got serious limits on who you can hurt/how much damage your can dish out. It's only worth -1 point if your rules of Engagement amount to, "Minimize killing and property damage."

Killing Ritual: This borders on a Code of Honor, Compulsive Behavior, Trademark, or Vow, or perhaps just a perverse version of Charitable. You can't just kill your foes out of hand. Instead, you must engage in some sort of time-consuming ritual before you deliver the fatal blow.

For -1 point, it's a Quirk that you must use a particular weapon or technique as a "finishing move," or perhaps speak some phrase or perform some quick ritual.

For -5 or more points, you have to spend minutes or hours performing some action prior to finally killing your foes (e.g., interrogation, torture, or preparing the victims for ritual sacrifice).

For -10 or more points, you must capture foes rather than killing them in combat, although you can kill them, or allow them to be killed, at a more appropriate time. (e.g., an Aztec warrior who takes captives to be sacrificed to his gods or a flesh-eating monster who captures its prey first and determines who gets eaten first later).

Dislikes Killing - The Quirk level version of Reluctant Killer. You can kill without hesitation when necessary, but you prefer less-than-lethal solutions. Good for people in the killing trades who retain at least degree of compassion.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Rules of Engagement: Sort of falls between a Code of Honor, Duty, Reprogrammable, or Vow. You will not inflict any degree of harm greater than what the mission requires - as specified by your employer or superiors.

In itself, I'm not sure that this is worth much; superiors tend either to be relaxed so long as the job gets done, or to have strict rules that they'll enforce whether you like them or not.

However, I could see a soldier having something that amounts to Code of Honour (Bound by the Geneva Convention or equivalent). You obey the prevailing rules of war scrupulously, potentially up to using force to restrain more sloppy comrades, or at least reporting them after the fact and escalating if your immediate superiors don't trigger a court martial. Usually -5, but could be worse if the rules are strict or your comrades are homicidally sloppy by default.

[AlexanderHowl]

Combat Reflexes is almost a requirement for being an adventurer in my games, as it defines the difference between being a 'hero' and being a bystander. In fact, I have often thought that GURPS should have it as a baseline for PCs and make it a disadvantage to not have it, something I do in many of my campaigns. The disadvantage is Bystander, and it gives penalties where Combat Reflexes gives bonuses (Combat Paralysis is an additional disadvantage that adds to Bystander).

As for Pacifism, Reluctant Killer, Cannot Kill, and Self-Defense are quite common among my groups (I do not allow Cannot Harm Innocents for being too cheesy or Total Nonviolence for being too annoying). Good cops and/or soldiers can have Self-defense while everyone else should have either Reluctant Kill or Cannot Kill unless they have a good reason. Of course, this goes out the window in pre-modern or post-apocalyptic campaigns, as life is cheap and people are familiar with death.