A Thought About Pacifism

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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.

It's purely subjective and I'm wary of those as they allow easy even unconscious munckining.
If you have a compromised immune system, and I walk down the street toward you coughing up a lung, I am a clear and present threat to your health and possibly life.
If I'm bullet proof, then you weilding a gun is not a legitimate threat no matter how much getting shot hurts.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's purely subjective and I'm wary of those as they allow easy even unconscious munckining.
If you have a compromised immune system, and I walk down the street toward you coughing up a lung, I am a clear and present threat to your health and possibly life..

No you aren't. You're an indirect, hypothetical and avoidable threat. In fact getting in close contact by striking you increases my danger. It's not the same as a mob which is becoming violent.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No you aren't. You're an indirect, hypothetical and avoidable threat. In fact getting in close contact by striking you increases my danger. It's not the same as a mob which is becoming violent.

You yell for me to stay away, but I say, "Screw...cough...cough... off!" You assume I am avoidable, but jerks put us in danger all the time. Would you have to literally run away from me? No belief in "castle doctrines" that some states allow for lethal "self defense"?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You yell for me to stay away, but I say, "Screw...cough...cough... off!" You assume I am avoidable, but jerks put us in danger all the time. Would you have to literally run away from me?

Yes. The people in the mob and and the brainwashed child soldier are actually attacking people. That gives CHI more leeway.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You yell for me to stay away, but I say, "Screw...cough...cough... off!" You assume I am avoidable, but jerks put us in danger all the time. Would you have to literally run away from me? No belief in "castle doctrines" that some states allow for lethal "self defense"?

I'd say that if you had Pacifism (Self Defense) or (Cannot Harm Innocents) you would be just as capable of using force against this person as someone in the same situation with no Pacifism at all. Which is probably you wouldn't be restrained by your mental compulsions, but would by your basic intelligence.

Though if you are endangered by somebody coughing on you and still walking around in public unprotected, I suppose you aren't very smart, and might not be restrained by the realization that killing somebody because they might cough on you is not going to persuade a jury.

[jason taylor]

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.

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.

I think that would be correct. Otherwise all it would mean is "I'm a minimally civilized person." To qualify for a disadvantage I should think it an unusual restriction. Han Solo may have been justified in shooting first but that doesn't make him pacifist.

[BrockNicholson]

Thanks for the points about Self Defense Only vs Cannot Harm Innocents. I wasn't thinking of Innocent in GURPS terms. Very helpful.

As far as what sort of Pacifism Colossus has, like all things comic book, it depends on which version of Colossus you are talking about.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by BrockNicholson

As far as what sort of Pacifism Colossus has, like all things comic book, it depends on which version of Colossus you are talking about.

Yes, and therefore the GM, or the player, has to decide which version theirs is.

[jaHenderson]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I think that would be correct. Otherwise all it would mean is "I'm a minimally civilized person." To qualify for a disadvantage I should think it an unusual restriction. Han Solo may have been justified in shooting first but that doesn't make him pacifist.

I think that Han Solo would have been allowed to shoot Greedo if he had "Self Defense Only" - Greedo wasn't threatening to attack him in the future, he was threatening to attack Han right there and then.

However, I think that Han would have been obliged to set his blaster to stun if he had self defense only. Self defense only should mean using only the level of force necessary to defend himself.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by jaHenderson

I think that Han Solo would have been allowed to shoot Greedo if he had "Self Defense Only" - Greedo wasn't threatening to attack him in the future, he was threatening to attack Han right there and then.

However, I think that Han would have been obliged to set his blaster to stun if he had self defense only. Self defense only should mean using only the level of force necessary to defend himself.

Greedo was literally pointing a blaster in Han's face (so any less-lethal resistance would have likely ended with Han getting a hole burned through his skull) and telling him he was going to take him to Jaba for the bounty (which would have almost certainly ended in torture and death for the smuggler). Additionally, there's no guarantee Han's blaster even had a Stun setting, and even if it did a shot to Greedo's legs may not have been capable of knocking him out (note Han appears to shoot through the table to hit Greedo's chest, and I doubt a stun shot would have made it that far). So, yeah, unless Han had Cannot Kill or Total Pacifism (or Reluctant Killer, where it would have caused a -4 to hit), that shot would have been perfectly fine. Of course, Han clearly lacks any form of Pacifism, so it's something of a moot point.


As for the topic at hand, I'd say any RyanW probably has the best overall method. Really, the bulk of the additional points are going to be from tacking on Reluctant Killer, as that works out as "You can't fight unless <Condition X is met>, and even then you're at -4 if using lethal methods."