De-nerfing Pacifism: Cannot Kill

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Really? I don't actually recall that scene.

"I don't have to save you, either" which was one of the most controversial attitudes for Batman to have given previous canon and the Begins movie.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Throw in the campaign's apparently rather harsh time management regime

. . . which seems to be a big part of the problem. My campaigns are full of "and then four months pass" and "a week later." The likely result of a PC with Pacifism (Cannot Kill) killing is 10 days of lost study time, which occurs off-screen. That's annoying but hardly harsh. Of course, if the killing occurs right at the start of an adventure, then the consequences become a problem – but such an outcome implies that inevitably lethal combat is part of the campaign's day-to-day rather than reserved for the endgame, which probably makes Pacifism (Cannot Kill) inappropriate for the campaign.

—

It's important to note that just as, say, Magery doesn't suit a modern-day military game and Extra Arm doesn't fit the adventures of normal humans in 13th-century France, not every disadvantage fits every campaign, either. Pacifism (Cannot Kill) is meant for campaigns with more-or-less realistic levels of violence (like a modern-day soap opera) and/or those with unrealistic levels of violence but also unrealistically low lethality (like supers). It's also important to note that many traits – and not just disads – assume you'll be using the rules for study and downtime. This definitely includes most traits that lay up the PCs for days at a time. If you aren't using those rules, you're forced to assess penalties in spotlight time, which isn't the point.

[theshadow99]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

"I don't have to save you, either" which was one of the most controversial attitudes for Batman to have given previous canon and the Begins movie.

Personally... I don't see 'Cannot Kill' as 'cannot allow someone to die', so to me even if we were converting him to GURPS I'd let him keep Cannot Kill... Then again... I'm kinda tired seeing heroes go out of their way to save the villian who is then locked up until he inevitably is set free...

[SuedodeuS]

Pacifism: Cannot Kill has two parts to it. The first part is something like an OPH where you stop others from killing. The second part is an enhanced version of Chronic Depression that triggers if you kill somebody and lasts 3d days. I'd eyeball the OPH part as being worth around [-5], and the enhanced form of Chronic Depression as being around [-20]. Thus, it appears you could rebuild Pacifism: Cannot Kill with some other triggered Disadvantage that lasts 3d days by taking half the triggered Disadvantage's cost and adding 5.

So, a "bloodrage" variant (built with Berserk) would be worth [-15] and leave you in a state where you can easily (6 or less) be set off to berserk. A "blood-drunk" (built with Bloodlust) variant would instead be worth [-10] and leave you somewhat-likely (12 or less) to kill any foes you fight. Now, some Disadvantages would be inappropriate - smelling bad after killing somebody is probably a Quirk, and its a similar case with many other social disadvantages (like Bad Temper, Bully, etc), despite the formula indicating these would be worth [-10].

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

You appear to be layering Guilt Complex on top of your Pacifism,

Quoted for Truth
Those were all situations where:
A: you had no way of knowing that your actions might result in a death, and
B: the GM was deliberately setting you up to kill someone.

I think it's good roleplaying to be very upset and depressed about these deaths, but I don't think it's particularly fair to expect you to pay the full consequences for violating your pacifism in those circumstances.

[martinl]

To take a different POV:

Sod the point value, what do you want to roleplay?

It seems to me that you want to play a character that really really respects human life and tries to do their best to preserve it in an world where monsters are real. You would also like to be able to fail occasionally without becoming useless afterward.

As a GM, I'd be willing to commute the morose period to something less incapacitating (compulsion to make amends is probably best) relatively easily, since the concept is a little broader than than the original disad, but still plenty of fun.

That said, I tend to care less about point balance in practice (although it is sure a lot of fun in theory). YMMV

[thedot]

I had an idea. What about using the mechanics listed for Guilt Complex when the character kills someone?

Depending on the character's Will, the results aren't going to be any worse than the average 3d6 results. In fact, a high Will character will fare quite a bit better. Also, in Guilt Complex, it gives an out in terms of other PC's being potentially able to talk the character out of his/her depression.

I think if I was the GM I'd be okay with swapping out the mechanics listed in Cannot Kill for the ones in Guilt Complex.

Anyhoo, that's my $0.02. Hope it helps!

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Really? I don't actually recall that scene.

It is his last line to Liam Neeson.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Good for you.

In the words of a certain Mr. Franko: eh?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Quoted for Truth
Those were all situations where:
A: you had no way of knowing that your actions might result in a death, and
B: the GM was deliberately setting you up to kill someone.

I can't give him a pass on the kidnapping. That's a serious crime against the victim's person, and the deaths of anyone as result are on his head. And it's not like he kidnapped the innocent from a family of Christian Scientists so he could get life-saving medical treatment and was hit by a drunk driver on the way to the hospital, he intentionally took the guy to a "ritualistic shotgun wedding", a situation of yet more duress and danger.