GURPS On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

OTOH, why would someone who had Callous, Empathy and high IQ ever be diagnosed with anything?

He doesn't suffer from any inability to function in society or live a normal life. In fact, he may carefully fake being normal in every way, except that he's better than most people at social skills and anticipating the reactions of others. Being Callous carries with it no obligation to perform violent actions or indeed anything which is likely to bring a negative consequence upon the character.

By definition, if it doesn't impede your ability to function in society, it's not a disorder.

I get what you're saying, though, and you're right. I'm not arguing that that combination of disadvantages and advantages doesn't occur in real life, I'm saying that it isn't the disorder labeled "sociopathy" by health care professionals.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If they know that this is the exact feeling that correlates with having a certain type of disorder, they're likely to 'investigate', eventually being able to diagnose the disorder. (This is assuming Callous is the trait that qualifies one for having the disorder.)

Edit: to be more precise, characters with Empathy react at -1 towards characters with Callous. This is most likely because they understand that those characters are Callous - remember, Empathy (and by extension, Body Language) allows determining true loyalties of characters. And if a character has zero loyalty towards anyone except Numero Uno, well, that tells something.

Yes, that tells us that he's self-interested. But that isn't a mental disorder of any kind.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Yes, that tells us that he's self-interested. But that isn't a mental disorder of any kind.

Depends. Being more self-interested than other-interested is perfectly normal. Being self-interested to the point of being totally indifferent to the lives and wellbeing of others, and even actively cruel, with no 'safeties' (let me guess - most Callous characters don't have a socially approvable CoH, RC, SoD etc. either) is definitely an anomaly.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Depends. Being more self-interested than other-interested is perfectly normal. Being self-interested to the point of being totally indifferent to the lives and wellbeing of others, and even actively cruel, with no 'safeties' (let me guess - most Callous characters don't have a socially approvable CoH, RC, SoD etc. either) is definitely an anomaly.

Callous doesn't mean actively cruel. In fact, it places no constraints on what a character can do or avoid doing.

It is a Disadvantage because people react negatively when they notice that other people lack an actual interest in their emotions and well-being. But it is not a mental disorder, in that it in no way prevents someone from functioning perfectly well in society.

In the same way, Pacifism: Relucant Killer is a Disadvantage, but not a mental disorder. Or Odious Personal Habit (Inappropriate Sense of Humour). The correlation between GURPS Disadvantages and diagnosable mental disadvantages is not 100%. Not even close.

[Witchking]

Back to the OP...

IMHO

if the PC is playing w/o some of the A/M Disads...Callous/Sadism/etc. and has something horrific happen to them IN COMBAT (accidently kills an innocent, etc) and does not have SOD Humanity/Reluctant Killer etc...

That then falls under the heading of ROLEPLAYING. The rules are a guide not a railroad.

FREX the main character I am playing now GUNSLINGER/lawmanish DWA 15mm Automags from UT (in a TL 8/9 world) with his backround of "Paratrooper/FBI agent" would probably FINISH THE MISSION (even though any hit on an Unarmored innocent will likely be spectacularlly messy). Then attemppt first aid, then collapse for a while after the inevitable failure, and then turn himself in and a lot of his future character trajectory will be dealing with the fallout...

But the disads on the sheet are just a start...for most of my PCs and NPCs the personality has evolved in play.

YMMV but I would expect the players to handle it as a GM.

[Crakkerjakk]

I'd just enforce Fright Checks for accidentally popping a kid or something. People who voluntarily roleplay their disads I'd probably leave be, but if your Pacifism(RK) shoots a kid he's gonna probably be rolling Will at a pretty hefty penalty in my games.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I'd just enforce Fright Checks for accidentally popping a kid or something. People who voluntarily roleplay their disads I'd probably leave be, but if your Pacifism(RK) shoots a kid he's gonna probably be rolling Will at a pretty hefty penalty in my games.

Pacifism: Reluctant Killer actually has its own mechanism for depression and guilt after killing someone.

That being said, I would probably enforce de facto Fright Checks for all characters who were not inhuman mosters/constructs or something and killed someone and had to witness the consequences. These would be in addition to specific effects of Disadvantages.

In practice, if someone has got an effective Fright Check of 16+ after negative modifiers, I'll usually not roll. I know, I know, rule of 14 and all, but I impose that only for 'special' cases. Since I normally roll Fright Checks every time someone takes injury, is at significant risk of suffering a deadly attack of some kind or kills someone in combat, I tend to be lenient with the Rule of 14. For example, the cases mentioned above are not officially 'Fright Checks' in my campaign, but special Will or Will-based Soldier checks modified by Fearlessness or Fearfulness (and other appropriate traits). So they don't fall under the Rule of 14 except when I think they should and I get to declare that the results are different from the Fright Check table when I think that is appropriate.

Of course, the +5 for being in combat would often apply, but given that the realisation that you shot a child would often come after the firefight, that's not guaranteed. And so, even well-trained soldiers with Will 10, Fearlessness 1 and Soldier at IQ+2 (effective 13) will fail from time to time, especially given that a child that died a violent death at your hands is worth a hefty penalty judging by the example Fright Check modifiers.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I'd just enforce Fright Checks for accidentally popping a kid or something. People who voluntarily roleplay their disads I'd probably leave be, but if your Pacifism(RK) shoots a kid he's gonna probably be rolling Will at a pretty hefty penalty in my games.

True but the OP was postulating that NORMAL people (ie no particular disads <positive Reluctant KIller, SOD Humanity or negative Sadist, Callous>) should be effected by such a happenstance.

I agree with the sentiment but do not think that there needs to be a rule for it. That is the realm of the player, it is up to them to decide how it effects them.

Again IMHO and YMMV.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Witchking

True but the OP was postulating that NORMAL people (ie no particular disads <positive Reluctant KIller, SOD Humanity or negative Sadist, Callous>) should be effected by such a happenstance.

I agree with the sentiment but do not think that there needs to be a rule for it. That is the realm of the player, it is up to them to decide how it effects them.

Again IMHO and YMMV.

I don't like the idea that normal people in GURPS are immune to things that normal people are not immune to in real life.

If a player says to me; "I wanna play a principled, kind, sensitive man who can nevertheless be perfectly ruthless when called upon and act in a coldly rational manner without regard to his own conscience or any weakness"; I'll say 'Fine, take very high Will and the Controllable Disadvantage: Callous Perk'. Because normal people are making Will rolls at hefty penalties when they decide to act in a way that humans are generally programmed, by biology or social conditioning, to shy from.

[Engurrand]

on the OP
I'm no expert, but I work for a foundation that supports veterans who suffer from PTSD, and I've done a lot of interviews. I would break down the effects into two categories:

Shock in the immediate aftermath of an "event."

and the long term effects of being under constant threat of attack.

The immediate aftermath can be pretty well modeled with "Post Combat Shakes" which I suspect is a disad most people start with and have to buy off, much like Reluctant Killer. (With a few notable exceptions).
I would give people the bonuses from Fearless and Combat Reflexes to that self control roll. But, even with stellar numbers, frequent rolling will eventually start accruing quirks and mental disadvantages from failures.

Then there's the long term effects. Combat Reflexes is effectively hyper-vigilance, one of the symptoms of PTSD. It means you're always looking for an attack. You're always "hyped up." This explains all the game benefits, eg increased reflexes, bonuses against surprise, etc. All fine, if you're on the battlefield. But it wears you out mentally, especially when you come home. So I was thinking, (never implemented, my current game isn't that realistic): you give combat reflexes a self-control roll. GM decides when you roll it, but it should be any time you're faced with a potentially threatening situation. If you fail, then your body says you're in a fight, whether or not there is one. This is cool if there's a real fight, but if there isn't, you still suffer the FP loss, post combat shakes etc as though there were. The GM can be sneaky about making you roll that self control too. IRL guys have episodes noticing paper bags by the side of the road, because they might be IEDs, even though they're driving through Nebraska.