A Thought About Pacifism

[BrockNicholson]

I am currently building the character Colossus of X-Men fame. In modelling his form of pacifism I ran into a question. Can one character have multiple instances of Pacifism? I ask because Colossus is a Reluctant Killer, but he also Cannot Harm Innocents, and in most depictions he fights in Self-Defense Only. My gut feels like this isn't quite right, and the description says to pick one. However, all these characteristics are true of the same character and it seems odd not to model all three aspects of the way he approaches violence. Further, no piece contradicts another piece. What would you suggest?

[Bilanthri]

I would probably just bundle all these together specifically for Colossus and call it a particularly strict Code of Honor [-20].

Alternatively, you could pick the most applicable variant of Pacifism and then also take a lower value CoH.

[RyanW]

I think what I would allow multiple types of non-total pacifism, but the costs of all of them after the most expensive is halved, with a few extra additions:

* Reluctant Killer cannot be combined with Cannot Kill (full overlap).
* Cannot Harm Innocents is treated as having a base cost of -5 when combined with Self Defense Only (substantial overlap).

So Self Defense Only, Cannot Harm Innocents, and Reluctant Killer come out to -20.

No combination of pacifism can exceed the -30 for total non-violence, as it should be.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by BrockNicholson

I am currently building the character Colossus of X-Men fame. In modelling his form of pacifism I ran into a question. Can one character have multiple instances of Pacifism? I ask because Colossus is a Reluctant Killer, but he also Cannot Harm Innocents, and in most depictions he fights in Self-Defense Only. My gut feels like this isn't quite right, and the description says to pick one. However, all these characteristics are true of the same character and it seems odd not to model all three aspects of the way he approaches violence. Further, no piece contradicts another piece. What would you suggest?

Well the upper limit for the combination is -30 (for Total Pacifist). If you consider the others as limitations of that, well Reluctant Killer is you aren't limited 85% of the time, Cannot Harm Innocents is you aren't limited 65%, Self Defense Only is not limited half the time. So if they were independent you wouldn't be limited 28% of the time, call it -21 points.

But for this particular combination, they aren't independent, because Self Defense heavily overlaps not Innocent. I've said before that despite how many people *want* to interpret it, the opposite of "innocent" in this construction isn't "guilty", it remains closer to the original meaning the prefix negates - "noxious". Things that are dangerous to you (and thus already allowed under Self Defense) are not Innocent (and conversely someone confessing to any number of crimes but who didn't hurt anyone and isn't likely to going forward *is* innocent, and you can't use violence against them) so somewhere between -17 and -21. Calling it -20 seems fair enough.

[whswhs]

I take Cannot Harm Innocents to be a less restrictive variant of Self-Defense Only. Everything the former includes the latter includes also. So it has no independent value; you only get -15.

As for Reluctant Killer, since SDO stops you from using force against anyone who is not actually attacking you or someone you're responsible for, and Reluctant Killer only slows you down, it has no effect with such people in itself; "hesitates for a moment" is trumped by "hesitates permanently." It only matters with the minority of people who are actually giving you cause for use of force by attacking someone. I might just call that a quirk, "Reluctant to use deadly force even when force is justified"; the strict calculation would probably be that -5/-30 = -2.5/-15, and -2.5 rounds to -2.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by BrockNicholson

I am currently building the character Colossus of X-Men fame. In modelling his form of pacifism I ran into a question. Can one character have multiple instances of Pacifism? I ask because Colossus is a Reluctant Killer, but he also Cannot Harm Innocents, and in most depictions he fights in Self-Defense Only. My gut feels like this isn't quite right, and the description says to pick one. However, all these characteristics are true of the same character and it seems odd not to model all three aspects of the way he approaches violence. Further, no piece contradicts another piece. What would you suggest?

It is very much not true that Colossus fights in Self-Defense Only. He can and will participate in team operations in which they initiate violence against the bad guys and voices no objections. And that's not even getting into the time he started a bar room brawl with Juggernaut who wasn't even doing anything except drinking. And when fighting things like Proteus and the Brood he hasn't especially sweated the necessity of killing them either.

Certainly he's not enthusiastic about killing human beings even when they're villains, but I don't think that's enough of a constraint to be meaningful. It's just "default hero" stuff.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I take Cannot Harm Innocents to be a less restrictive variant of Self-Defense Only. Everything the former includes the latter includes also. So it has no independent value; you only get -15.

Someone with Self Defense Only would be able to defend himself against a panicked crowd that doesn't intentionally mean him any harm or a brainwashed child soldier. In those (admittedly unusual) situations, I would say CHI is more restrictive than SDO.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Someone with Self Defense Only would be able to defend himself against a panicked crowd that doesn't intentionally mean him any harm or a brainwashed child soldier. In those (admittedly unusual) situations, I would say CHI is more restrictive than SDO.

Nope. A brainwashed child soldier who is trying to kill you is not an Innocent for the purpose of CHI. It is a foe who is trying to do you serious harm. And if you want to punch out a few losers in a panicked crowd...you're allowed to do that too as long as you aren't using "deadly force".

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Nope. A brainwashed child soldier who is trying to kill you is not an Innocent for the purpose of CHI. It is a foe who is trying to do you serious harm. And if you want to punch out a few losers in a panicked crowd...you're allowed to do that too as long as you aren't using "deadly force".

That would be Cannot Kill, unless you really don't think punching people causing minor to major injury counts as harm.

According to old threads, authors have strongly implied that self defense trumps all and that even preemptive strikes are allowed for imminent threats.
They said that my interpretation of Self Defense Only; no I really mean it would be a far more restrictive version. I imagine same would go for CHI: no I really mean it.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That would be Cannot Kill, unless you really don't think punching people causing minor to major injury counts as harm.
.

You aren't allowed to attack people who pose no threat to anyone. But panicky people in a crowd who are lashing out randomly aren't that.