Can you have two Pacifisms?

[Flyndaran]

A five year old pointing a loaded gun at me is both innocent and morally "shootable" for self defense.

I know that most disadvantages start out harsh, but usually come with all sorts of unspoken or authorial exceptions as to castrate them.

I suppose Gurps innocent could easily mean bystander or non-combatant.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I'll grant you the cops and the practical jokers--but not allowing people with Cannot Harm Innocents to defend themselves against attacking wild animals and violent mentally ill people seems pretty absurd to me.

Four-color comics morality includes this. "Don't hurt the animals/crowd/werewolves! They're innocent victims of the Mad Mind Controller's schemes!"

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I suppose Gurps innocent could easily mean bystander or non-combatant.

=GURPS Basic Set
Cannot Harm Innocents: You may
fight – you may even start fights – but
you may only use deadly force on a foe
that is attempting to do you serious
harm. Capture is not “serious harm”
unless you are already under penalty
of death or have a Code of Honor that
would require suicide if captured. You
never intentionally do anything that
causes, or even threatens to cause,
injury to the uninvolved – particularly
if they are “ordinary folks.” This trait
is especially appropriate for crimefighters,
supers, etc.

So looking at it closely, it covers two things:
1: Don't use deadly force unless someone is attempting serious harm. (Which has SERIOUS overlap with Self-Defense Only)
2: Don't cause injury to the "uninvolved" or "ordinary folks".

Of course, individual GMs adjudicate differently, but that's the RAW text right there.

[Not]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

A five year old pointing a loaded gun at me is both innocent and morally "shootable" for self defense.

Does he take the -4 penalty to his roll?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Not

Does he take the -4 penalty to his roll?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I doubt most children have had time to develop Reluctant Killer by that age even if they would later in life. Most probably don't have much of an understanding of death at five.
I climbed into the area where my father kept his gun when I was around that age. It was heavy as heck, but I could have used it if I hadn't realized how dangerous/wrong I was being to even touch it. He was a cop and likely didn't know how much of a monkey I could be back in the late 70s. (Wow I made myself feel old.)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by aesir23

So looking at it closely, it covers two things:
1: Don't use deadly force unless someone is attempting serious harm. (Which has SERIOUS overlap with Self-Defense Only)
2: Don't cause injury to the "uninvolved" or "ordinary folks".

Of course, individual GMs adjudicate differently, but that's the RAW text right there.

It only has serious overlap if you're fighting on that featureless plane so common in many games. The surroundings and specifics are rarely so clear cut.

But I will strongly lessen my objections due to your quoted section. I tend to think of that disadvantage as Comic Book-y or nearly universal as a generic non-military good guy quirk or minor vow.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Realistically, I think most fights involve at least partially innocent people. Look at war. Most don't want to be there or have anything personal against you, all the while trying to kill you.

This is an older usage of innocent than the "not legally culpable" one a lot of people seem to be assuming, one closer to the root meaning of nocere "to hurt". The antonym of innocent here is not "guilty", but "noxious".

And yeah, Self Defense is a sub-category. If it would be valid to kill somebody in self defense they aren't innocent. Of course some people are much too liberal with self defense - and maybe stating the relationship would help there too. If they haven't hurt you, it's not valid to kill them in self defense because you assume they are going to! You have to wait for something as least as obvious as would allow you to treat them as not innocent.

[Flyndaran]

Legal self defense does allow for imminent danger. As in if someone's about to hit you, you may hit first.
I watched Judge Judy rule that way to the shock of the thuggish fight loser.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Less than lethal weapons, FTW, Mr. Smarty Pants. - Sarcastro ;)

Okay, they're slightly related, but not heavily overlapped, in my opinion.

If only sublethal attacks are available, then Cannot Kill is invalid because it does not limit the character.

Of course realistically lethal options are always a factor because people can kill with bare hands, pushing into hazards, smothering with fluffy pillows, depriving of food and water, etc.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Every single wild animal attack. Mentally ill-handicapped-drugged, and children can kill.

Innocent cops trying to apprehend you when other dirty cops in the department are trying to kill you.

Practical jokers not knowing you have a lethal allergy to whatever their wielding.

That's not even starting with all the unreal things possible in a Gurps game.

Wild animals may not be considered innocent depending on the exact moral code; particularly, if a predator is considered morally innocent despite attacking the prey without provocation because that's what it instinctively must do to survive without moral choice, then the prey's resistance to the predator in defense can be considered to not be an act of intentional harm, because that is also what it instinctively must do to survive without moral choice.

Practical jokers forcing you to be subjected to something are committing assault. No means no.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Legal self defense does allow for imminent danger. As in if someone's about to hit you, you may hit first.
I watched Judge Judy rule that way to the shock of the thuggish fight loser.

I agree with Flyn here. This is the Greedo rule; Han was justified in shooting Greedo first because Greedo was holding Han at gunpoint for no lawful reason, tried to rob him, and was trash-talking him about how much he wanted to shoot Han.

Now if Han had seen Greedo walking the other way down the street oblivious to his presence and then shot him, there would be no question of self-defense.