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

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Engurrand

That makes perfect sense to me. I think you're right that the disad would limit the options available to soldiers, commando squads, or terrorist cells. This is relevant in warfighting games.



I still agree with this in any game in which rule of law has a presence. Well structured societies will fiercely punish indiscriminate collateral murder. I would expect the disad as described to be the default assumption in a wide array of campaigns, from Monster Hunters to Indiana Jones, to Star Wars, to Ocean's Eleven. In all of those genres it's expected to kill people who oppose you, and the definition of evil to kill people who don't. In many such genres, "not evil" isn't a disadvantage. (Edit: Clarification: I mean that it's a campaign feature. Whether or not it disadvantages you is thus immaterial).

I'm pretty you're the bad guys in a heist movie if you murder honest cops and security guards just doing their jobs. Similarly Indiana Jones kills people who are trying to kill him. A rival relic hunter who just tries to get the prize for herself by wits and stealth may oppose him but shooting her is not on.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I'm pretty you're the bad guys in a heist movie if you murder honest cops and security guards just doing their jobs. Similarly Indiana Jones kills people who are trying to kill him. A rival relic hunter who just tries to get the prize for herself by wits and stealth may oppose him but shooting her is not on.

Most of IJ's rival relic hunters seem to have some nefarious purpose in mind beyond,"Wouldn't it be cool to have this in my living room."

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Most of IJ's rival relic hunters seem to have some nefarious purpose in mind beyond,"Wouldn't it be cool to have this in my living room."

Most, yes. But that's beside the point. Indiana Jones still kills people when they are kind enough to give him permission by trying to kill him or people he likes. At the start of the first movie he runs into Belloq, a slightly less scrupulous treasure hunter who has stolen from Indy repeatedly. This has only happened because Indy doesn't kill mere opponents. Seriously, there's no way that Belloq would have survived that many encounters with the far more physically capable Indy if Indy killed people just for opposing him.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Engurrand

I still agree with this in any game in which rule of law has a presence. Well structured societies will fiercely punish indiscriminate collateral murder. I would expect the disad as described to be the default assumption in a wide array of campaigns, from Monster Hunters to Indiana Jones, to Star Wars, to Ocean's Eleven. In all of those genres it's expected to kill people who oppose you, and the definition of evil to kill people who don't. In many such genres, "not evil" isn't a disadvantage. (Edit: Clarification: I mean that it's a campaign feature. Whether or not it disadvantages you is thus immaterial).

I agree that it's a common trait for heroic PCs. In fact, GMs who desire a certain style of play may require it, just as GMs who want to avoid excessive inter-party conflict may require Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions). Required Disadvantages are very common in campaigns I play. If all the PCs are active duty soldiers, Duty is a required Disadvantage. If all the PCs are heroic adventurers, which is a perfectly valid campaign premise, P:CHI (and possibly other Disadvantages) may be required.

That shouldn't mean that the character doesn't get points for the Disadvantages.

After all, in a game where all the PCs are cops, Legal Enforcement Powers and skills like Criminology, Driving (Automobile) and Professional Skill (Law Enforcement) may be mandatory, but they still cost points.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Your experience with PCs differs from mine.

It describes every PC I've ever played, but not all of them I've seen other people play. I'm glad to have the 10 points representing the difficulty difference between my playstyle and theirs.

[lordabdul]

I think P(CHI) is well priced for some campaigns, and overpriced for others.

For example, I ran various CoC and Delta-Green campaigns with GURPS and for those, P(CHI) works as expected: you can't really fire your guns in the street if there are civilians around, you can't use deadly weapons against security guards to break into a warehouse (unless you know for sure those guards are evil cultists), in most cases you can't fight when lawyers, cops, or any other kind of authority comes to take you away to prison or something, etc... that's all fine.

However I'm currently running a post-apocalyptic campaign and it doesn't work as well. First, it's the post apocalypse! Nobody's innocent! Second, there is no structured society with well recognized organizations that can come and take you away or something -- no cops or lawyers or whatever else. Third, modern weapons are very rare (at least in our campaign) so 90% of the time the characters are fighting with low-tech stuff (bows, swords, clubs, etc.), and therefore nothing that could endanger any bystanders. So really, it just prevents players from acting like lunatics who want to pillage settlements and kill people on the road to get some loot for no particular reason... at which point I would either be slightly afraid of my players, or they would have taken some other disadvantages to play a somewhat evil/bullish character.

[Ronnke]

Originally Posted by lordabdul

you can't use deadly weapons against security guards to break into a warehouse (unless you know for sure those guards are evil cultists), in most cases you can't fight when lawyers, cops, or any other kind of authority comes to take you away to prison or something, etc... that's all fine.

Yes you can, if the guards belong to an established enemy, or intolerance group. So, if you are a gangster, then guards, police and lawyers, etc are all you enemy, you can pop them off no problems.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Yes you can, if the guards belong to an established enemy, or intolerance group. So, if you are a gangster, then guards, police and lawyers, etc are all you enemy, you can pop them off no problems.

If you're a gangster then cops and layers are NOT the enemy list, rivial gangs/families are. P(CHI) innocents is the Gangster that goes never harm an offcier of the court it's draw too much heat, it better to doing your dime that to harm them. They ther one who define innocents as those who don't chose to play on there side of the law, wither as Marks or Rivals. Forexample, Gentleman Johnny Marcone

[lordabdul]

The way Kromm originally described it in the thread that was linked previously, I think that a gangster with P(CHI) would:

1) Give himself peacefully (relatively... he may still throw a few punches) if officers of the law come knocking, show some handcuffs and a warrant, and say "you're under arrest", and somehow there's no possibility to run away.

2) Run away if there *is* a possibility to run away (which is probably the common case). No deadly force can be used yet however (especially if running away through a crowded street)

3) Start shooting if the cops shoot first, or if the character knows that, if caught, he would get the death penalty.

Otherwise yeah, I agree with roguebfl -- the police are not the enemy of gangsters unless there's a very specific and gruesome situation going down at the moment, like all out gang war in the streets with militarized police and martial law or something.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

If you're a gangster then cops and layers are NOT the enemy list, rivial gangs/families are.

And importantly, being enemies is [not] the same thing as not being innocents. If you are pretty sure the rival gang will shoot on sight, or the local cops are in the habit of administering summary executions, then maybe, but otherwise even if you actually took them as Enemies they're usually Innocent up to the point they actually threaten to hurt somebody.