Cuteness

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Sure I can. I can kill them on sight.

As a player you never make a reaction roll in GURPS (even if you have a trait which makes you react at a modifier), due to the way GURPS structures player agency*. And for an NPC, the GM can choose not to make a Reaction Roll, just as a GM can choose to not roll and dictate any result. A character, however, does not have a choice of whether or not to make a reaction roll.

If a situation came up where a PC was in the bunny role and an NPC was in the butcher role, and the PC was otherwise powerless but had characteristics which should modify the reaction roll, the GM would, IMO at least, be poorly advised to simply forgo the roll and declare that the PC was killed outright.

OTOH, requiring an extreme result on such a roll for a butcher to elect not to kill something that was in line for it is perfectly in keeping with the RAW definition of the reaction roll categories.


* You could actually retain player agency but subject PCs to Influence and Reaction rolls if you use the rules influencing success rolls and adapted them to reaction rolls as well, giving the player the choice of roleplaying within the result of the roll or buying out of it.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

If a situation came up where a PC was in the bunny role and an NPC was in the butcher role, and the PC was otherwise powerless but had characteristics which should modify the reaction roll, the GM would, IMO at least, be poorly advised to simply forgo the roll and declare that the PC was killed outright.
t.

Only because it's not nice to trap a PC with no way out. Really PC Bunny has no more chance of getting a life-saving reaction roll from a professional butcher than it does from an avalanche.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Really PC Bunny has no more chance of getting a life-saving reaction roll from a professional butcher than it does from an avalanche.

IMO, This is, at best, hyperbole (butchers, as a class, aren't automatons); to the extent that it reflects an underlying reality, its one which GURPS rules already addresses reasonably well if you read the reaction roll results appropriately to the situation, rather than simply imposing fiat results.

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Only because it's not nice to trap a PC with no way out. Really PC Bunny has no more chance of getting a life-saving reaction roll from a professional butcher than it does from an avalanche.

Exactly. I should not have said it was related to the skill PS (Butcher) as much as if someone is a butcher, with or without the skill, their experience in their profession allows them to ignore the cuteness. They might still think that the animal is cute but they also know it is food and it has to be killed. I'd say that is simply a 0-point feature of living in certain cultures or making a living in certain professions.

It is interesting, of course, that some cultures include what might be called psychological buffers for the act of killing--my understanding is that in some native American tribes, you are supposed to thank an animal you have killed for giving up its life to feed you, etc., and the kosher method of slaughtering animals makes a big deal out of doing it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Why these developed, I do not know. I'd like to think it is partly out of a recognition of the animal as another living being who deserves as much respect and kindness as possible. ("As possible" is the operative phrase here.) I wonder if it is also partly a way of making ourselves feel better about having to kill to survive? Yes, we killed, but we showed respect, we tried to prevent terror and agony, etc. We are killers but we are not monsters. That sort of thing.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Animal cuteness probably isn't species-neutral. It's appearance vs. the dominant species (humans), which is one of the two options you can get out of unmodified Appearance. The other being appearance vs. your own kind.

In which case you get an animal that humans find cute but elves do not, which is maybe weird.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In which case you get an animal that humans find cute but elves do not, which is maybe weird.

Why would it be weird?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Why would it be weird?

Stereotypical elves being stereotypical elves and woodland critters being woodland critters, you'd expect a stronger reaction to juvenile mammals rather than a weaker one compared to burning, razing, pillaging, paradise paving for parking lot, humans.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In which case you get an animal that humans find cute but elves do not, which is maybe weird.

Only if the elf idea of cuteness is different from that of the reference society which is not necessarily the case. It's pretty likely of course that elves will have similar standards, being so humanlike in appearance themselves.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Only if the elf idea of cuteness is different from that of the reference society which is not necessarily the case. It's pretty likely of course that elves will have similar standards, being so humanlike in appearance themselves.

Yes. The effects are on the creature's own species or on the main sapient species. For other species, the rules don't dictate them. An elf might say, How cute, just like a human; an orc might say, Dinner.

Bill Stoddard

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

I though he was going here:

http://kidzcoolzone.com/wp-content/u...aby-bunny1.jpg

Harming it would give a penalty to rolls for some time. Actually killing it gives Chronic Depression as a temporary Disadvantage.