To kill or not to kill. Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents)

Ronnke · 05-09-2017, 09:40 PM

For years I’ve been playing Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) in a particular fashion, but I won’t go into that as it’s not important. A few days ago I re-read the description and come to the realisation I’ve probably been playing it wrong.

My assertions (see below) pertain to when you can and can't use deadly force on a foe. With deadly force being anything that could result in death, i.e. stabbing, shooting, etc. All the different levels of pacifism are built on the foundation, you are opposed to violence. This means it’s not some Code of Honour or Rules of Engagement, which you can switch on or off depending on the situation, such as during a war vs peacetime. The trait is a psychological aversion to violence, you're simply not mentally equipped to be violent. The different levels reflect the degree of that psychological impairment. My thinking is probably best illustrated with examples and I’d like the opinions of the community to see if I am on target or off base with my interpretations.

Situation 1
You have cornered an unarmed Bad Guy™. You have him at gun point ask him to give up. He then decides to rush you, to try and get away. This results in a fight.

I assert P(CHI) means you cannot simply shoot him because, at this point, he is not trying to do you serious harm. The situation has not become dire enough to push you over the edge to be willing to use deadly force and risk killing the guy. So instead you grapple, punch, kick, etc, using any and all non-lethal means to subdue the bad guy. If he manages to get away, you will lay chase but at no point would you shoot him, even if it means he will escape you.

Situation 1a
While wrestling with the Bad Guy™, he manages to get his hands around your throat and starts choking you. Your life is now in danger and he’s now trying to do you serious harm.

Given this change in the situation, you still don't want to kill him, but it's now either him or you, so you reach for your gun and fire a shot into his belly. He let's go and falls to your side bleeding. Now, he’s no longer trying to cause you harm, so you don’t proceed and the fight is over.

Situation 1b
You have fired a shot into the belly of the Bad Guy™ who is choking you. He is mad with rage and fights through the pain and continues choking you.

You still do not want to kill him, but the situation has become so dire, you're pushed over the brink. You keep firing into the bad guy until he’s either dead or lets you go.

Situation 1.1
While you have the unarmed Bad Guy™ cornered and at gun point, asking for his surrender. He says, "screw you, buddy, you’re going to have to shoot me. I'm not giving up."

In this case you would then holster the gun and initiate a fight, using whatever non-lethal means necessary to subdue the bad guy. If the fight escalates, then see 1a.

Situation 2
You are escaping from a prison. There is an armed guard on duty blocking your escape. Stealth past him is not an option, as you will be seen. If you are caught, you will be beaten up a bit and do some time in solitary confinement. You have a knife.

Someone with P(CHI) is permitted to start fights, but not use deadly force unless the foe is attempting to do them serious harm. You can NOT sneak up behind the guard and slit his throat with the knife. Instead, you would probably sneak up, but place the knife to the guard's throat and say something like, "Don't say a word or I kill you. I need you to give me the keys, take your gun out and put it on the ground." If the guard complied, then you would knock the guy out, or tie him up and gag him in a closet. Then make your escape.

Situation 2a
The guard while you have the knife to his throat, decides to be a hero and grabs your arms and a fight starts. During that fight, he manages to set off the alarm.

Someone with P(CHI) will not use deadly force until the foe attempts to do you serious harm. Thus, you would not slit his throat nor would you attempt to stab him during the fight, at least until it escalates to a point in which they attempt to seriously harm you. See 1a.

Situation 2b
While wrestling with the guard, you can hear the sound of other guards approaching and your window for escape is closing.

The easy solution would be to stab the guard and then make your escape, but someone with P(CHI) would not do such a thing. The situation is not dire enough to push you over that edge for you to inflict deadly force. You would instead fight on until you manage to subdue your foe or it becomes helpless and you give up to the other guards and do your time in solitary.

Situation 2c
While wrestling with the guard, you can hear the sound of other guards approaching and your window for escape is closing. You know that should they catch you, then you will go in front of the firing squad instead of time in solitary.

In this situation, you would fight on and try to subdue the guard, however, if that’s not working and the other guards are getting close, then you would be forced to stab the guard and make your escape.

Situation 3
An unarmed Bad Guy™ has his finger on a remote detonator which is linked to explosives setup in a stadium the other side of town. A bunch of civilians are at the game and will die if the explosives go off. You have the bad guy cornered and at gun point. He says, "Don't try and be a hero or the super bowl is going to end with a bang. Drop your gun and kick it over here."

In this situation, you would not risk taking the shot at the unarmed Bad Guy, as a whole bunch of innocents may die as a result. Instead, you comply with the bad guy, even if it means your surrender may result in your possible death.

What are your thoughts, is my understanding of Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) correct or am I misinterpreting it?

khorboth · 05-09-2017, 10:04 PM

You've pretty much got it right according to how I read it. A few notes:

We've extended the definition to allow deadly force to prevent serious harm to others if no other option seems likely to prevent it. This seems to be implied, but isn't explicit. Otherwise, someone with this disadvantage would stand there helplessly as the bad guy burned the village down unless they attacked him specifically.

Situation 3 overlaps with Sense of Duty (some group that includes people in that stadium), but both would force a similar reaction in that case.

Ronnke · 05-09-2017, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khorboth

Otherwise, someone with this disadvantage would stand there helplessly as the bad guy burned the village down unless they attacked him specifically.

What I would imagine they would do in that case is, try and intervene using non-lethal means and only resort to deadly force if the fight escalated and the hero is now in danger of serious harm.

Ronnke · 05-09-2017, 11:35 PM

Could a person with Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) snipe an enemy soldier on watch duty?

I'm of the opinion, no they could not, the fact that the foe is an enemy combatant makes no difference. You are still not permitted to use deadly force on a foe until they attempt to cause you serious harm.

Pacifists would make poor snipers.

Thoughts?

simply Nathan · 05-09-2017, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Could a person with Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) snipe an enemy soldier on watch duty?

I'm of the opinion, no they could not, the fact that the foe is an enemy combatant makes no difference. You are still not permitted to use deadly force on a foe until they attempt to cause you serious harm.

Pacifists would make poor snipers.

Thoughts?

I disagree. An enemy combatant is not an innocent for the purposes of this Disadvantage. The point of Cannot Harm Innocents is that you refuse to do things that harm bystanders who aren't involved in the conflict.

If you have to wait for someone to attack you before fighting back, that's Self-Defense Only. Nothing about Cannot Harm Innocents prevents you from making pre-emptive attacks, nor from using lethal force.

Ronnke · 05-09-2017, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

If you have to wait for someone to attack you before fighting back, that's Self-Defense Only. Nothing about Cannot Harm Innocents prevents you from making pre-emptive attacks, nor from using lethal force.

That has always been my interpretation until I re-read the disadvantage. It doesn't stop you from preemptive attacks, but it actually does prevent you from using lethal force until your foe attempts to harm you.

Kelly Pedersen · 05-10-2017, 12:09 AM

Kromm has clarified that Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) can be read as "Pacifism (Don't endanger bystanders)", more or less. So, for your examples (and I'm only listing where I disagree)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Situation 1
You have cornered an unarmed Bad Guy™. You have him at gun point ask him to give up. He then decides to rush you, to try and get away. This results in a fight.

I assert P(CHI) means you cannot simply shoot him because, at this point, he is not trying to do you serious harm.

Nope, you can shoot him. He's identified as a bad guy, he's starting a fight. That's "serious harm". Once he's out of the "innocent" category, you can use as much lethal force as you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Situation 3
An unarmed Bad Guy™ has his finger on a remote detonator which is linked to explosives setup in a stadium the other side of town. A bunch of bunch of civilians are at the game and will die if the explosives go off. You have the bad guy cornered and at gun point. He says, "Don't try and be a hero or the super bowl is going to end with a bang. Drop your gun and kick it over here."

In this situation, you would not risk taking the shot at the unarmed Bad Guy, as a whole bunch of innocents may die as a result. Instead, you comply with the bad guy, even if it means your surrender may result in you possible death.

This is very much an edge case, in my opinion. On the one hand, you don't want to risk harm to innocents. On the other hand, the Bad Guy is threatening a whole lot of harm to innocents too, and surrendering might very allow him to carry that out. I'd look at what other disads and traits the character had in that case. If they had Overconfidence and decent Gun skill, or even just really high Gun skill, I can see an attempt to shoot the trigger mechanism out of the guy's hand, or something flashy like that. If, on the other hand, the hero had Cautious, or a similar trait, they should probably give in.

Ronnke · 05-10-2017, 12:45 AM

Well Kromms response is pretty clear and that means my original interpretation was correct. It also means the text of P(CHI) is misleading/confusing. It specifically states you cannot use deadly force unless your foe attempts to cause you serious harm. Then there is the line about capture is not serious harm. If someone is trying to capture you, then they cease to be an innocent party, so you're within your rights to blow them away. Why even mention it.

David Johnston2 · 05-10-2017, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnke

That has always been my interpretation until I re-read the disadvantage. It doesn't stop you from preemptive attacks, but it actually does prevent you from using lethal force until your foe attempts to harm you.

"You" is a plural noun, mind you. Lethal force against anyone on your side qualifies. Someone who isn't trying to do any serious harm to anyone qualifies as innocent. So you can't kill people who are just trying to arrest you.

Ronnke · 05-10-2017, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

you can't kill people who are just trying to arrest you.

You can if they are considered your enemy, even if it's just to arrest you not hurt you.

05-09-2017, 09:40 PM	#1
Ronnke Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Australia	To kill or not to kill. Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) For years I’ve been playing Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) in a particular fashion, but I won’t go into that as it’s not important. A few days ago I re-read the description and come to the realisation I’ve probably been playing it wrong. My assertions (see below) pertain to when you can and can't use deadly force on a foe. With deadly force being anything that could result in death, i.e. stabbing, shooting, etc. All the different levels of pacifism are built on the foundation, you are opposed to violence. This means it’s not some Code of Honour or Rules of Engagement, which you can switch on or off depending on the situation, such as during a war vs peacetime. The trait is a psychological aversion to violence, you're simply not mentally equipped to be violent. The different levels reflect the degree of that psychological impairment. My thinking is probably best illustrated with examples and I’d like the opinions of the community to see if I am on target or off base with my interpretations. Situation 1 You have cornered an unarmed Bad Guy™. You have him at gun point ask him to give up. He then decides to rush you, to try and get away. This results in a fight. I assert P(CHI) means you cannot simply shoot him because, at this point, he is not trying to do you serious harm. The situation has not become dire enough to push you over the edge to be willing to use deadly force and risk killing the guy. So instead you grapple, punch, kick, etc, using any and all non-lethal means to subdue the bad guy. If he manages to get away, you will lay chase but at no point would you shoot him, even if it means he will escape you. Situation 1a While wrestling with the Bad Guy™, he manages to get his hands around your throat and starts choking you. Your life is now in danger and he’s now trying to do you serious harm. Given this change in the situation, you still don't want to kill him, but it's now either him or you, so you reach for your gun and fire a shot into his belly. He let's go and falls to your side bleeding. Now, he’s no longer trying to cause you harm, so you don’t proceed and the fight is over. Situation 1b You have fired a shot into the belly of the Bad Guy™ who is choking you. He is mad with rage and fights through the pain and continues choking you. You still do not want to kill him, but the situation has become so dire, you're pushed over the brink. You keep firing into the bad guy until he’s either dead or lets you go. Situation 1.1 While you have the unarmed Bad Guy™ cornered and at gun point, asking for his surrender. He says, "screw you, buddy, you’re going to have to shoot me. I'm not giving up." In this case you would then holster the gun and initiate a fight, using whatever non-lethal means necessary to subdue the bad guy. If the fight escalates, then see 1a. Situation 2 You are escaping from a prison. There is an armed guard on duty blocking your escape. Stealth past him is not an option, as you will be seen. If you are caught, you will be beaten up a bit and do some time in solitary confinement. You have a knife. Someone with P(CHI) is permitted to start fights, but not use deadly force unless the foe is attempting to do them serious harm. You can NOT sneak up behind the guard and slit his throat with the knife. Instead, you would probably sneak up, but place the knife to the guard's throat and say something like, "Don't say a word or I kill you. I need you to give me the keys, take your gun out and put it on the ground." If the guard complied, then you would knock the guy out, or tie him up and gag him in a closet. Then make your escape. Situation 2a The guard while you have the knife to his throat, decides to be a hero and grabs your arms and a fight starts. During that fight, he manages to set off the alarm. Someone with P(CHI) will not use deadly force until the foe attempts to do you serious harm. Thus, you would not slit his throat nor would you attempt to stab him during the fight, at least until it escalates to a point in which they attempt to seriously harm you. See 1a. Situation 2b While wrestling with the guard, you can hear the sound of other guards approaching and your window for escape is closing. The easy solution would be to stab the guard and then make your escape, but someone with P(CHI) would not do such a thing. The situation is not dire enough to push you over that edge for you to inflict deadly force. You would instead fight on until you manage to subdue your foe or it becomes helpless and you give up to the other guards and do your time in solitary. Situation 2c While wrestling with the guard, you can hear the sound of other guards approaching and your window for escape is closing. You know that should they catch you, then you will go in front of the firing squad instead of time in solitary. In this situation, you would fight on and try to subdue the guard, however, if that’s not working and the other guards are getting close, then you would be forced to stab the guard and make your escape. Situation 3 An unarmed Bad Guy™ has his finger on a remote detonator which is linked to explosives setup in a stadium the other side of town. A bunch of civilians are at the game and will die if the explosives go off. You have the bad guy cornered and at gun point. He says, "Don't try and be a hero or the super bowl is going to end with a bang. Drop your gun and kick it over here." In this situation, you would not risk taking the shot at the unarmed Bad Guy, as a whole bunch of innocents may die as a result. Instead, you comply with the bad guy, even if it means your surrender may result in your possible death. What are your thoughts, is my understanding of Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) correct or am I misinterpreting it? __________________ Bro! Do you even GURPS? Last edited by Ronnke; 05-10-2017 at 12:16 AM.

05-09-2017, 10:04 PM	#2
khorboth Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Denver, CO	Re: To kill or not to kill. Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) You've pretty much got it right according to how I read it. A few notes: We've extended the definition to allow deadly force to prevent serious harm to others if no other option seems likely to prevent it. This seems to be implied, but isn't explicit. Otherwise, someone with this disadvantage would stand there helplessly as the bad guy burned the village down unless they attacked him specifically. Situation 3 overlaps with Sense of Duty (some group that includes people in that stadium), but both would force a similar reaction in that case.

05-09-2017, 11:35 PM	#4
Ronnke Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Australia	Re: To kill or not to kill. Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) Could a person with Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) snipe an enemy soldier on watch duty? I'm of the opinion, no they could not, the fact that the foe is an enemy combatant makes no difference. You are still not permitted to use deadly force on a foe until they attempt to cause you serious harm. Pacifists would make poor snipers. Thoughts? __________________ Bro! Do you even GURPS?

05-10-2017, 12:45 AM	#8
Ronnke Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Australia	Re: To kill or not to kill. Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) Well Kromms response is pretty clear and that means my original interpretation was correct. It also means the text of P(CHI) is misleading/confusing. It specifically states you cannot use deadly force unless your foe attempts to cause you serious harm. Then there is the line about capture is not serious harm. If someone is trying to capture you, then they cease to be an innocent party, so you're within your rights to blow them away. Why even mention it. __________________ Bro! Do you even GURPS?