Cannot Harm Innocents except for Euthanasia purposes

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The character, on the other claw, might have a certain excuse as being a clearly Bad Person who's been "cursed" with Cannot Harm Innocents by someone trying to improve their behavior (via mind control, magic, brain-washing, what-have-you).

The externally controlled psychopath is a legit character trope, but usually doesn't have Pacifism -- they have Duty (Involuntary) or Reprogrammable.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by edk926

Say you have a healer/doctor who devote themselves to helping others and has a general pacifism where they don't normally harm innocents. The problem with modern medical science or fantasy magic is that you can only do so much to cure a person. Some things are beyond our reach like some cancers and other terminal diseases. If that healer/doctor was devoted to end suffering, maybe they would want to euthanize someone that's dying and in great pain.

What kind of modifier would that be to 'Cannot harm innocents' (or 'Cannot kill' for that matter)? Would it depend on the TL?

It could be treated as a -10% mitigator to CHI. Not the way I'd go though. I'd go with a Do No Harm Code of Honor.

[roguebfl]

Pacifism:CHI has absolutely Zero problems with killing. It's even perfectly valid to have both Pacifism:CHI and Bloodlust. All it would really mean is someone with Pacifism:CHI could use Euthanasia in Assisted suicide and Mercy killing situations. [they would not be ok with Euthanasia in the Eugenics approach though]

It is Pacifism:Can Not Kill that has a problem with Euthanasia.

Also note the Hippocratic Oath is neither, it's an example under Code of Honor (Professional)

[2097]

I think it should be a listed exception for those who do want that exception. But I think it should cost 0 points. It's just a variant of Cannot Harm Innocents, both variants costs 10.

They are slightly different codes but they have about the same impact over the span of a PC. Even when the difference becomes relevant; 'Oh the angst, my code prohibits this!' vs 'Oh, so serenely I do the duty of my code!'

With that ruling, any philosophical (in this case rather semantical) debate of whether or not it falls under any particular definition of 'harm' is sidestepped.

I'd even go as far as rule that the player does not have to specify this at chargen time. An "Oh, of course I meant the version where I can respectfully and serenely perform euthanasia because I genuinely believe it truly diminishes suffering!" would suffice for me as GM, as would a player making the opposite call for their PC. (And from then on, that's the code they're using.)

Of course, if the desire to specify this comes from the player, of course they can write it down. Prep is play when it comes to building detailed, principled characters.

[2097]

I did read through the thread before posting, but missed this.

Originally Posted by Railstar

We can debate whether euthanasia is good or bad, but if the character genuinely thinks of it as helping the person (and the person being euthanized agrees...), then I'd consider it to count as following the "spirit of the law" as far as Cannot Harm Innocents is concerned, by seeking to spare them pain and suffering.

Yes, I agree. It's irrelevant what we think, what matters is what the character thinks.

Anyway, good question!

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

True euthanasia should not be classed as harm.

I agree with Donny Brook. If allowing someone to continue suffering in an incapacitated state can be called harm, then not helping them to come to a clean end would be, by definition, doing harm.

Cannot Harm Innocents would almost require them to assist in the unfortunate's end.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I agree with Donny Brook. If allowing someone to continue suffering in an incapacitated state can be called harm, then not helping them to come to a clean end would be, by definition, doing harm.

Cannot Harm Innocents would almost require them to assist in the unfortunate's end.

Careful, lest you turn a trait that prevents one from doing things (Pacifism) to one that demands doing them (Sense of Duty/Duty/CoH/etc.).

[Zemyla]

Isn't euthanasia something that's asked for by the person who wants to die, or else something that's asked for by the family of someone who can't ask for themselves and probably will never be able to?

In either case, you'd pretty much be required to make sure that there was literally nothing else that could be done for them before you gave them the good death they were asking for.

It is a thorny ethical question, though.

[Bruno]

There's also "Mercy Killing", for severely wounded people in battlefield conditions. The people deciding whether to do this are rarely family members or other caregivers, and it's pretty controversial today (I'm pretty sure the modern US military considers it murder). But today we have battlefield surgery, effective nursing care, antibiotics, prosthesis, and generally much better hope for the wounded. It's a much different prospect in the mud of a tenth-century battlefield.

[roguebfl]

Here are Some past quotes from Kromm on the disadvantage [where the main issues was killing captured Slavers where where captured whiled trying to enslave them]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) is about avoiding harm to those uninvolved in your fight. It could be read as "don't endanger bystanders" without much loss of meaning. It in no way prevents you from killin' those who need killin' if they (1) are valid enemy combatants, or (2) are sworn foes under the terms of your Code of Honor, Intolerance, or whatever. Somebody with Pacifism (Cannot Harm Innocents) mainly avoids automatic weapons fire in built-up areas, explosives in general, setting fires, and so on. If someone just attacks him, he can cut off the attacker's head and use it as an ashtray, if he wants.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Killing cops is definitely right out. I'm not so sure about prisoners. Codes of conduct regarding prisoners have been quite variable, historically . . . Prisoners aren't really "innocents" if they were captured whilst trying to kill you. They might be if they were nabbed merely because they were in the way, though.

Regardless of all that, the game effect is meant to be "don't endanger bystanders," mainly. Once someone has crossed the line to "enemy combatant," he isn't innocent. At that point, it's more things like Honesty and Bloodlust that are liable to come into conflict.