Cannot Harm Innocents

[Dragondog]

In the text of the disadvantage Pacifism - Cannot Harm Innocents it says: "You never intentionally do anything that causes, or even threatens to cause, injury to the uninvolved."

So if an uninvolved person is being attacked, would ignoring that, perhaps because the PC is injured, be a breach of the above disadvantage?

[coronatiger]

The disad is "Cannot harm innocents", not "Protector of innocents". I would not require you to intervene if you witness an assault, although I wouldn't fault you for doing so. Depending on your other traits, I might expect you to talk down or restrain the attacker, or possibly even attack him with lethal force, but that's not part of Pacifism.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by coronatiger

The disad is "Cannot harm innocents", not "Protector of innocents". I would not require you to intervene if you witness an assault, although I wouldn't fault you for doing so. Depending on your other traits, I might expect you to talk down or restrain the attacker, or possibly even attack him with lethal force, but that's not part of Pacifism.

Indeed. Heroic pacifists don't protect others because of their Pacifism, they protect others because of their Sense of Duty. ISTR Cannot Harm Innocents being mentioned as an appropriate trait for demons in some settings, to represent they aren't allowed to harm the innocent.

[Polkageist]

To blur the lines a little bit, the text there has a bit in common with the Asimov laws of robotics, specifically the first one, "...cannot cause harm to a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm"

Now, CHI doesn't explicitly say that. It COULD implicitly be interpreted to say that, if say a player wanted to justify getting involved or if the GM wanted to encourage a player into action.

I wouldn't twist anyone's arm to the point of requiring anything since the text doesn't directly say that and it overlaps with sense of duty (which is clear call to action), but it's a button to press and see if it makes something interesting happen.

[Phil Masters]

It's a GM judgement call, but if a normal human (as opposed to a law-bound demon) with Cannot Harm Innocents failed to throw a lifebelt to a drowning presumed-innocent, I'd at least ask why not. There's a level of inaction that amounts to malicious action.

[Anders]

Right. It depends on the risks involved. If there's no risk and they just stand there as the guy drowns/burns/bleeds out... yeah, that's a loss of character points. Unless it's a curse of some sort and "Exact words" matter.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anders

Right. It depends on the risks involved. If there's no risk and they just stand there as the guy drowns/burns/bleeds out... yeah, that's a loss of character points. Unless it's a curse of some sort and "Exact words" matter.

While I wouldn't deduct points for poor roleplaying, something like that might result in me giving the character Callous, a negative Reputation, or similar if such events continue to occur. Assuming the character doesn't have an appropriate Sense of Duty or similar, anyway.

Of course, "I thought it might be a trap," "I didn't think it was real," "I figured someone else had it handled," "It would have taken too much of my time," "I might need that life-preserver (or whatever resources might be used in the rescue) for someone I actually care about," etc would all be acceptable answers, as those are the reasons normal people will ignore stranded motorists, drowning people, etc.

[Rolando]

Originally Posted by Varyon

...

Of course, "I thought it might be a trap," "I didn't think it was real," "I figured someone else had it handled," "It would have taken too much of my time," "I might need that life-preserver (or whatever resources might be used in the rescue) for someone I actually care about," etc would all be acceptable answers, as those are the reasons normal people will ignore stranded motorists, drowning people, etc.

I agree to this up to a point, because many normal people may not have anything like CHI.

I remember some psychology experiment (may be internet ******** though) that allowed people to give electrical shocks to other people anonymously, the electrically shocked where all actors, the experiment was to see if common people where cruel if there where no consequences or something along that line.

Also the amount of common daily wickedness and apathy in the common human tells me CHI is not a common feature.

Many people that say stuff like that Varyon mention may even be callous, didn't really care but have to say something so others don't see them as cruel and other try to cope with the guilt by saying that to themselves.

I as GM would at least make some depression or guilt felt to the player character (maybe with some game mechanics involved, maybe not) and reduce roleplaying XP earned.

On the other hand, not helping someone get mugged or harmed means getting in harms way most of the time and a natural reaction may be to not get involved for personal safety, so no roleplaying penalty, just the lingering guilt feelings and frustration of not being able to help the victim (with the possible game mechanic penalties or whatever).

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Rolando

I remember some psychology experiment (may be internet ******** though) that allowed people to give electrical shocks to other people anonymously, the electrically shocked where all actors, the experiment was to see if common people where cruel if there where no consequences or something along that line.

That's the Milgram experiment, which was real, and has been replicated many times, with reasonably consistent results.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

So if an uninvolved person is being attacked, would ignoring that, perhaps because the PC is injured, be a breach of the above disadvantage?

GM's call, but I'd say no as long as both the PC and the player have a reasonable excuse. Being injured, outnumbered, outclassed, or otherwise engaged in a more important mission are all good reasons for the PC to not intervene.

However, a Pacifist or someone with a Sense of Duty or Duty who sees an "innocent" being attacked and is unable to intervene might suffer sufficient emotional distress that they must make a Fright Check. Survivor guilt is a huge part of PTSD, best modeled by Guilt Complex.

The GM also has to allow a bit of flexibility as to who counts as an "Innocent" based on the campaign tone and genre. In an action or fantasy campaign, anyone working for/related to the bad guys might be a legitimate target even if they're non-combatants or unwitting dupes. In a "gritty" campaign, a character with CHI might be unable or unwilling to attack such targets.

Realistically, soldiers who are forced to kill child soldiers, unwilling suicide bombers, etc. can suffer terribly from the knowledge that they were forced to kill an essentially innocent person even when their actions were justified.