Pacifism: cannot harm innocents

[hal]

Hello Folks,
Rarely do I ever really discuss future plans for a campaign unless I'm seeking to open up the possibility for alternative possibilities rather than the one I'm envisioning. But in this case, the campaign I was envisioning for my players has run into an unexpected snag. Per GURPS CHARACTERS rules for pacifism - should the character violate the special brand of pacifism, they are subjected to the full effects of Pacifism: Cannot Kill. This will result in the player character being effectively incapacitated for 3d6 days filled with remorse and generally be useless.

That however, seems to largely be useless guidance for the GM. What happens afterwards (ie, once the 3d6 days have transpired)? Does the character no longer have that pacifism disadvantage any longer? If the character has "Can not Harm Innocents", does he need to make a roll of some sort to actively kill an innocent in contravention of his mindset?

This is what I'm open to suggestions over. If told "Kill this person or we'll kill you." that is one thing. If told "Kill this person" and suspect that failing to do so will result in your own death - that is a subtle distinction over the first example. Would there be some sort of mental conflict involved under those circumstances? For instance? Similar to the rules for reluctant killer, might the player character suffer a penalty to their gun skill? Or perhaps the character might suffer from nightmares?

As ever, your comments are welcome not only to broaden my own options - but ways for people to creatively suggest methods for mental conflicts that have to be resolved for characters whose survival came at a cost...

[Gedrin]

Just because someone felt forced into doing something they find abhorrent, doesn't mean they ceased to find it abhorrent. In the situations you describe, such a person would feel horrible. They might recognize/rationalize that they didn't have a choice. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be torn up about the deed.

The difference between someone who has Pacifism: Cannot Kill Innocents, and just a normal guy who's decent and wouldn't choose to kill an innocent, is how integral it is to their self. One of them can pull the trigger if it means his own survival, the other might do it, but they'd think of it as a "moment of weakness" and exact punishment against themselves, even if the rest of the world didn't feel the need.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Gedrin

Just because someone felt forced into doing something they find abhorrent, doesn't mean they ceased to find it abhorrent. In the situations you describe, such a person would feel horrible. They might recognize/rationalize that they didn't have a choice. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be torn up about the deed.

The difference between someone who has Pacifism: Cannot Kill Innocents, and just a normal guy who's decent and wouldn't choose to kill an innocent, is how integral it is to their self. One of them can pull the trigger if it means his own survival, the other might do it, but they'd think of it as a "moment of weakness" and exact punishment against themselves, even if the rest of the world didn't feel the need.

Agreed. The problem here is, that if the character is faced with that, the player is already thinking "Heck, just reprogram my character like Jason Bourne" - which is essentially brain washing someone into becoming something different than he was. The player clearly isn't thinking "Oh <expletive deleted>! If they make me prove my loyalty, I can't do it!" He's thinking "I need to ditch that mental disadvantage for something else".

:(

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by hal

Hello Folks,
Rarely do I ever really discuss future plans for a campaign unless I'm seeking to open up the possibility for alternative possibilities rather than the one I'm envisioning. But in this case, the campaign I was envisioning for my players has run into an unexpected snag. Per GURPS CHARACTERS rules for pacifism - should the character violate the special brand of pacifism, they are subjected to the full effects of Pacifism: Cannot Kill. This will result in the player character being effectively incapacitated for 3d6 days filled with remorse and generally be useless.

That however, seems to largely be useless guidance for the GM. What happens afterwards (ie, once the 3d6 days have transpired)? D

Nothing much except it's no longer incapacitated by guilt. It still feels guilty about the killing, but it is no longer prostrate.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by hal

Agreed. The problem here is, that if the character is faced with that, the player is already thinking "Heck, just reprogram my character like Jason Bourne" - which is essentially brain washing someone into becoming something different than he was. The player clearly isn't thinking "Oh <expletive deleted>! If they make me prove my loyalty, I can't do it!" He's thinking "I need to ditch that mental disadvantage for something else".

If you knew your players would react that way, you shouldn't have let them take that disadvantage, because they didn't intend to roleplay it. A disadvantage that does not limit you is not worth points.

Of course, that's not much help now; it's more something to note for future campaigns. I would recommend spelling it out to the players, "If you take this, and killing an innocent comes up, your character is going to be a mental wreck if they ever do so, and you have to roleplay it. If you're not prepared to do that, your character doesn't have this disadvantage and you shouldn't take it."

Currently, though, I would recommend giving the player no experience points for the duration of the bad reaction, if they don't roleplay appropriately.

Bill Stoddard

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by hal

This is what I'm open to suggestions over. If told "Kill this person or we'll kill you." that is one thing. If told "Kill this person" and suspect that failing to do so will result in your own death - that is a subtle distinction over the first example. Would there be some sort of mental conflict involved under those circumstances? For instance? Similar to the rules for reluctant killer, might the player character suffer a penalty to their gun skill? Or perhaps the character might suffer from nightmares?

Regardless of the threat to your own life, if your character has this disadvantage and kills (or leaves to die) someone he believes to be innocent, he suffers for 3d6 days. Threats to your character's life are immaterial. Yes, this does leave your character vulnerable to kill-or-bigbad-kills blackmail scenarios. That's why it's a disadvantage.

Once those 3d6 days are up, I'd give him the option of buying off the disadvantage, or keeping it.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Yes, this does leave your character vulnerable to kill-or-bigbad-kills blackmail scenarios. That's why it's a disadvantage.

(Bolding mine)

I couldn't agree more. Players (and GMs!) sometimes forget that the purpose of disadvantages isn't just characterization -- it's meant to limit you. And the more points it's worth, the harder the limit is. A 10-point disadvantage should be a significant inconvenience.

[hal]

At this point, I'm inclined to agreeing with people who have stated that it is a disadvantage and the player should be role playing it. ;)

And, as is sometimes the case, it is up to the GM to remind the player that his mental outlook is such that killing innocents is not his thing, and he should be rebelling against the idea.

Instead of making the character totally unplayable for 3d6 days and then suddenly being "OK" about it, I suspect that saddling the player with additional disadvantages might be the way to go. Nightmares may be the way to go. He won't get to buy off what I consider to be a fundamental foundation of his character's personality. To me, that's just plain wrong. If he wants to substitute one disadvantage to replace the other - I'm going to find a way to make it such that it will be a disadvantage he can't choose to ignore playing in the future. Nightmares of the innocent he's killed would be one way of a mind that has damaged itself might respond. Dependency upon substance abuse to forget the deed so he can get sleep might take him a little deeper into the new "set" of disadvantages he can trade for his pacifism he failed to adhere to. And finally? Perhaps Bad Temper might surface as a consequence of the substance abuse.

In short? The new disadvantages should stem strictly from the old one in some way shape or form, and not be a convenience for the player to say "Hey, I can ditch disadvantages I don't want to play." Killing someone innocent, and then being incapacitated for 3d6 days doesn't really seem like all too much of a penalty clause for violating the disadvantage's "limits" as it were. Or?

Hmm...

what if, the player has to roll versus his will every night he's wracked with guilt over killing an innocent? What if he's reminded, that such will saving rolls FAIL on rolls of 14+?

I wonder how I'd make that mechanism work?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by hal

At this point, I'm inclined to agreeing with people who have stated that it is a disadvantage and the player should be role playing it. ;)

Probably. I think that for the sort of characters who would normally take this particular kind of pacifism, the logic should be something like accept that they are going to die, and given that somebody trying to force them to kill isn't an innocent, try to take him with them.

[CraigM]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Probably. I think that for the sort of characters who would normally take this particular kind of pacifism, the logic should be something like accept that they are going to die, and given that somebody trying to force them to kill isn't an innocent, try to take him with them.

Bingo. The "cannot kill innocents" response to a Gestapo officer forcing them at gunpoint to shoot a peasant is to try and shoot the Gestapo officer, even if it's suicidal to do so.

If a player insisted on ignoring the disadvantage, I'd probably swap it out for a combination of callous, nightmares, bad reputation and such.