"I never took it away from you. You took it away from you. Now you're ready"

[Ragitsu]

This may seem like a strange question, but are there any believable ways to roleplay buying off any of the Pacifism Disadvantages?

[rcarter]

Death of a loved one or friend at the hand's of an enemy because of players inaction would be a classical example of a character finding the inner urge to kill/avenge the wrong/mistake.

[TheGnome]

Or just gone nuts.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Traumatic events can quite possibly do it quickly. Though that can be dangerous.

People change over time. Experiences over years could justify slowly reducing and eventually removing pacifism (Or the other way around, for that matter). High-intensity experiences can alter that more.

And, of course, there's training. It might not work for everyone, but modern military-style training would certainly bring up the possibility of it. Kind of a sub-set of "traumatic events" (Boot camp is intentionally harsh, to aclimate new soldiers, and has a lot to do with mentality), but one that is idealy controlled and guided.

A good in-game possibility is, of course, violating that pacifism (With sufficient roleplay), and exchanging pacifism for a suitable other disadvantage (Chronic Depression, as the character dwells heavily on what they did, what happened, what they could have done better, etc). Which could then slowly be bought off as the character sorts through the stress and deals with it.

[Philosopher Rogue]

Ever watch Deathwish?

[hal]

Issues regarding the change of mental/moral outlook for people in general can be somewhat controversial. GURPS attempts to model these mental/moral traits as disadvantages because it constrains the character to act (or not act) in a certain manner. If a player were to say "I'm tired of this disadvantage - can I buy it off?" I'd likely respond "um, only if you role play it, or you can convince me that the role playing already done explains why it should be bought off."

To point out an example - The song "The Coward of the County" is about a young man whose father is sent to prison. He demands of his son, that he does not live the life he's led, and instills in him the idea that violence is wrong. From that point onwards, he has been provoked many a time - but he turns the other cheek and walks away from trouble.

It took a conflicting "mental trait" to intervene before the protagonist of the song could/would determine that turning the other cheek is wrong sometimes.

In GURPS, it is likely that the player needs to examine why they want to buy off a mental trait and decide if it is just "munchkinism" that is causing them to chafe under the restrictions, then they need to find an in-game way to replace one mental trait disadvantage with a new one. For example? The player character may attempt to break his moral conditioning, and find that he is unable to bear the thought of his past deeds, and takes up drinking to avoid it. Or he might take on a certain recklessness of his own safety as he becomes self-destructive. He might even try to repress certain other moral traits as he begins his slide down the slippery slope of morality into depravity - where, for now, he is not slipping any further. You might even have some fun with the player saying "I'm not your english teacher, but why don't you write a short two page story about your character's point of view and why he wishes to be rid of a troublesome mental trait?"

In short, make the player bring his character more to life not only in your eyes, but his own as well. Give the player an opportunity to make the character more 3 dimensional instead of a video game construct designed to hack and slash his way to happiness ;)

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

People change over time.

I have also heard that people do not change (such as a thief is always a thief, but that is only one example). Which is true?

[pawsplay]

There are many real-world cases of Buddhist monks with some level of Pacifism who later exchanged it for a lesser version, a different Disadvantage, or who seemingly bought if off. Frank Miller's Batman traded in Cannot Kill for Cannot Harm Innocents. In real life many soldiers are Reluctant Killers until training or experience removes this inclination.

In Star Wars, Jedi training seems to frequently instill various levels of Pacifism, but in practice all Jedi Knights are seemingly required to buy it down to Cannot Harm Innocents.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

People change over time.

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

I have also heard that people do not change (such as a thief is always a thief, but that is only one example). Which is true?

Both are true, in different circumstances. The two statements are only mutually exclusive if you think in terms of black & white absolutes.

Originally Posted by Neils Bohr

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

I have also heard that people do not change (such as a thief is always a thief, but that is only one example). Which is true?

I suppose I would have been more strictly accurate to say people can change over time. In effect, both can be true at the same time, though. Some parts change, some stay the same.