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

[Icelander]

As it happens, my most recent PC, Chase Taylor, actually has Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents), as well as heavily limited, basically Quirk-level Bloodlust. He hates hurting people and tries his best to avoid violence, but as he is a veteran Special Forces 18B (Weapons Sergeant) with superheroic senses*, who was trained in Kachin Bando by a very pragmatic sayagyi, in combat, he will go for the most decisive fight-ending moves available with ruthless efficiency.

Over 11 sessions, Taylor killed two people. There were a few broken bones and other serious injuries, but all in all, he did pretty well at not seriously harming the psychotic guards who were hunting us through the Manhanock Asylum for the Criminally Insane.

One of the two people killed was Warden Brad Tyrrell, the massive security chief and Deputy Warden of an insane asylum, standing in the dramatic role of the Dragon of the adventure (we didn't know about anyone giving him orders until near the end). Warden Tyrrell was actually killed in combat, though a dispassionate observer might have made the point that the extra Stamp Kick to the back of the head was uncalled for, as the skull was already fractured, but at least it was done in the heat of the moment.

The second victim, though, was unarmed and had already 'surrendered' (actually, negotiated immunity with shadowy conspirators who give commands to our characters). He was the Big Bad of the adventure, a Dr. Bruce Cotton, an evil psychiatrist and a mind-controlling hypnotist. Dr. Cotton had been in the proccess of speaking some trigger phrase into the intercom system under the pretence of ordering his men to stand down, but he had moved away from the intercom when Taylor shot him.

There was no element of self-defence involved and Dr. Cotton probably represented no immediate threat to Taylor. He had, however, tortured and abused a mental patient in his care, Ms. Cherry Bell, a woman for whom Taylor cared deeply. And if Dr. Cotton were to share his knowledge about the powers of that woman with the conspiracy he had negotiated an immunity with, it would inevitably lead to Ms. Bell being killed out of hand, vivisected or at least imprisoned in isolation and experimented upon for the rest of her life.

The way I saw it, executing Dr. Cotton was not a violation of Pacifism: Cannot Harm Innocents, though it was admittedly on the brink. But as he was a sadistic monster who fully planned on continuing using his hypnotic abilities to torture and kill people in the name of 'science', albeit with new masters, killing him could be justified as defence of his future victims.

It was a violation of my character's Code of Honour (Soldier's**), as he was a prisoner and though there wasn't actually a superior present to give legal orders to spare him, it was clear from the personal assistant to the Director who was present that those would have been his orders.

But because Charitable had already led my character to promise to kill Dr. Cotton in order to save Ms. Bell, whom he had abused and would have condemned to a terrible fate if he's been able to disclose the secret of her powers and because Intolerance (Bullies) didn't exactly predispose Taylor to approve of Dr. Cotton, I decided that on balance, killing him was what my character would choose to do.

But as it was dishonourable and only technically did not go against his pacifism, I'm roleplaying him as suffering from depression, guilt and post-traumatic stress in the aftermath.

*Including hand-eye coordination, evaluation of distance and accuracy, making him uncannily precise.
**Modified with elements of Southern Baptist Christianity and being a Good Boy for Momma.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Forexample, Gentleman Johnny Marcone

While I wouldn't give Marcone P(CHI), it would show up heavily in his Code of Honor... and if a GM were to give it to him in a campaign I was in, I wouldn't quibble.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, run away if if he figures that will produce better results than just fighting the charges in court. But as long he's going to get a real trial he can't kill his way out out of it even if the odds are legitimately against him. He can kill a death squad, a lynch mob or agents of a totalitarian regime who are a going to torture a confession out of him before execution.

[Ronnke]

Originally Posted by lordabdul

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.

From Kromm's comment

It in no way prevents you from killin' those who need killin' if they (1) are valid enemy combatants, or (2) are sworn foes under the terms of your Code of Honor, Intolerance, or whatever ... snip... If someone just attacks him, he can cut off the attacker's head and use it as an ashtray, if he wants.

It's the number 2 clause that gives me pause. While I think cops could be considered the enemy of gangsters, its the "intolerance, or whatever" that gives a gangster grounds to kill a cop. As long as bystanders are not going to get hurt.

EDIT: Assuming something like Intolerance (cops), a trait many gangsters would conceivably have.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Ronnke

EDIT: Assuming something like Intolerance (cops), a trait many gangsters would conceivably have.

Although many not - no more so than other rival gangs, really. Some gangs really are that stabbity: we had a gang here run by a couple of torture-happy psychopaths and they were pretty bad. But generally the gangs here don't shoot or stab cops, they shoot or stab each other (often conflict inside one gang, rather than even inter-gang conflict).

Well, except that one time when the Hells Angels went on a bombing campaign, but the Quebec Angels are nuts.

I doubt the average gang member has Cannot Harm Innocents - but they don't seem to have a Code Of Honor that requires them to murder cops, or an Intolerance of cops. They make a lot of noises about cops, but if a cop isn't all up in their bidness, there's not a lot of shooting.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I doubt the average gang member has Cannot Harm Innocents - but they don't seem to have a Code Of Honor that requires them to murder cops, or an Intolerance of cops. They make a lot of noises about cops, but if a cop isn't all up in their bidness, there's not a lot of shooting.

Yeah, intolerance (Cops) is a fast track to a criminal orgs dissolution (or an individual criminals incarceration).

[edk926]

Given how random the shots may go when someone does a drive-by, I wouldn't figure many gang members would have 'cannot harm innocents'. It seems like they are more likely to hit an innocent bystander than their target. That said, some group may have a strong code of honor that could allow P:CHI.

As far as the police is concerned, it would really depend on the group. Drug cartels largely view cops as the enemy and have no qualms killing them to make a statement. A common street gang is more likely to view cops as an inconvenience to their activities than a true enemy. Around here, there are tons of gang crimes, but it's rare that they target the police.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Yeah, intolerance (Cops) is a fast track to a criminal orgs dissolution (or an individual criminals incarceration).

Why though? Criminal doesn't mean suicidally stupid. Police are known to go after someone that hurt their own often bending or breaking laws to do so.
Criminals know this and even those with only half a brain wouldn't go out of their way to hurt a cop unless they're damn sure it won't get back to them.
(Their assessment of the statistical probability of that chance may or may not be very accurate of course.)
Though Impulsive violent sorts with such Intolerance won't last long, I agree.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by edk926

Given how random the shots may go when someone does a drive-by, I wouldn't figure many gang members would have 'cannot harm innocents'. It seems like they are more likely to hit an innocent bystander than their target. That said, some group may have a strong code of honor that could allow P:CHI.

As far as the police is concerned, it would really depend on the group. Drug cartels largely view cops as the enemy and have no qualms killing them to make a statement. A common street gang is more likely to view cops as an inconvenience to their activities than a true enemy. Around here, there are tons of gang crimes, but it's rare that they target the police.

Also they may have an eccentric concept of innocents. It might mean simply, "Cannot harm when harming would not benefit us particularly". I doubt they have problems kneecaping someone who can't pay their gambling debts, or stops paying tribute for the privilege of living.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Why though? Criminal doesn't mean suicidally stupid.

No, but it does mean they are going to antagonize the cops. When confronted, they won't meekly submit. Indeed, they might even go out of their way to poke the cops and some will think of the cops as inferior, thus leading them to underestimate them.


Thus, Intolerant (law Enforcement Officers) on a criminal is almost as bad as Bad Temper and Berserk on a 90 lb weakling in a fantasy game.