Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2018, 07:23 AM   #31
Phil Masters
 
Phil Masters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: U.K.
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
Before the Geneva convention it was quite dangerous for a medic to offer aid to enemy soldiers. A court martial would havery been the least they could expect in many areas.
Really? Any examples of such courts-martial, or less formal penalties?

By and large, once a professional code is established, I'd expect the public at large to recognise that it’s what you're likely to get once you hire a member of that profession.
__________________
--
Phil Masters
Creator of The Small Folk - Wainscot Urban Fantasy Roleplaying.
Discworld Roleplaying Game author, Transhuman Space Line Editor.
My Home Page.
Phil Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 07:30 AM   #32
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Well, it was more that it was dangerous to be the medic before the Geneva Convention because enemy soldiers would target the medic. In exchange for protection under the Geneva Convention, medics were obligated to treat enemy soldiers. Of course, it is so easy now for nations to label their opposition as enemy combatents, for nations to hire mercenaries to deal with problematic populations of civilians, and for nations to kill civilians with drone platforms that the Geneva Convention might as well be made from tissue paper.
AlexanderHowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 07:56 AM   #33
Railstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Yet Honesty and the higher grades of Pacifism have point values, despite effectively functioning as 'Cannot be a PC' for games featuring outlaws or people who deliver violence for a living. Their point value is primarily dictated by how much they constrain PCs from what may be practical options, but run against the code of behaviour implicit in the Disadvantages.

I think Codes of Honour ought to be priced by how much they constrain a PC's freedom of action. Whether or not they require dangerous behaviour is really a secondary issue, despite the wording in the Basic Set.
Cowardice would be a prime example to add to the list, since it certainly doesn't require dangerous behaviour.
Railstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 10:07 AM   #34
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
Before the Geneva convention it was quite dangerous for a medic to offer aid to enemy soldiers. A court martial would havery been the least they could expect in many areas.
I don't think that was quite true. Except in minor details such as what weapon is somehow more cruel then what other weapon, much of it could be recognized from CoH officers as it was perceived in Europe. Certainly I can't picture deliberately firing at an ambulance wagon being held in high repute. In any case if there was nothing to found the Geneva Convention on, it would have gone the way of the Kellog-Briand Pact.

What is true is that it was dangerous to be a medic; simply because there was lots of stuff flying around. What is more interesting is that medics went up in esteem starting as a rough time line with Barron Larrey. Sometimes before they were simply looked on as pig butchers operating on men. Baron Larrey was notable for his mechanical contrivance of an ambulance that had springs to keep it from bouncing and for not giving favors to rank or even which side someone was on. Aside from that the main element he brought to the thing was fanatical discipline about sanitation.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison

Last edited by jason taylor; 02-19-2018 at 01:26 PM.
jason taylor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 11:45 AM   #35
Not another shrubbery
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Masters View Post
Yep. Lizzie is severely practically disadvantaged, but pretty much all of it comes under Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen). The honor code which she obeys (partly because she'd suffer a massive negative Reputation if she didn't at least pay it lip service) imposes behavioural constraints on her ("pay your debts, keep your word, bring major issues of honour to the attention of male relatives"), but at the -5 point CoH level, not the duels-and-fair-fighting level associated with a -10 point CoH.
Wanted to add a me too to this. The adventurous constraints she would be operating under appear to me to be largely due to Social Stigma.

I also wanted to note that I've just discovered (although it's been going for a couple of weeks) that there is a Jane Austen inspired RPG on Kickstarter, called Good Society, which strikes me as a singular coincidence.
Not another shrubbery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 12:00 PM   #36
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery View Post
Wanted to add a me too to this. The adventurous constraints she would be operating under appear to me to be largely due to Social Stigma.
As I noted, if you have Code of Honour with similar values as the ones society forces on you, you are functionally disadvantaged to a much greater degree, because you can't simply figure out ways around the social constraints as you could do if you didn't believe in them.

Someone with Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen) can pull a Sweet Polly Olliver (may be more familiar to modern US audiences as a Mulan), murder their enemies in secret or otherwise act in any way they damn well please, as long as they manage to keep it a secret from anyone who matters to them socially.

A character with Code of Honour (Gentlewoman's Code) in addition to her Social Stigma has none of these opportunities open to her, because they would violate her Code of Honour.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 12:12 PM   #37
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

She would also be unable to enjoy sex outside of marriage, would have children as fast as humanly possible (avoiding methods of sexuality that would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, using female contraception [which there have been methods available since antiquity that are better than nothing], and would protest her husband using condoms [which were available in the 17th century]), and would generally be a vapid ninny.
AlexanderHowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 12:25 PM   #38
edk926
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
The social obligation to have children is much more dangerous for a woman than dueling is for a man. I think that maternal mortality was 25:1000 before the modern era, which meant that the average woman had a 12% to 22% chance of dying (assuming 5-10 pregnancies that made it to term).
And given the really high infant and toddler mortality rate, that 5-10 pregnancies rate was quite common.
edk926 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 01:06 PM   #39
evileeyore
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
As I noted, if you have Code of Honour with similar values as the ones society forces on you, you are functionally disadvantaged to a much greater degree, because you can't simply figure out ways around the social constraints as you could do if you didn't believe in them.
Also I'm personally okay with a bit of double dipping.

Look at Gregarious and Autophobia. Would you disallow a PC from taking both even though it's a clear case of double dipping?

(just using you as a branch off point Icelander, not arguing against your case, as I agree with it)
__________________
Feel free to steal, borrow, fold, spindle, mutilate any rule, advantage, etc I come up with it.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2018, 05:19 PM   #40
Phil Masters
 
Phil Masters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: U.K.
Default Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
She would also be unable to enjoy sex outside of marriage, would have children as fast as humanly possible (avoiding methods of sexuality that would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, using female contraception [which there have been methods available since antiquity that are better than nothing], and would protest her husband using condoms [which were available in the 17th century]), and would generally be a vapid ninny.
None of which has anything really to do with a Code of Honour.

But it’s the idea of a Jane Austen heroine being described as a “vapid ninny” that now has me amused.
__________________
--
Phil Masters
Creator of The Small Folk - Wainscot Urban Fantasy Roleplaying.
Discworld Roleplaying Game author, Transhuman Space Line Editor.
My Home Page.
Phil Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
code of honor, disadvantage of the week

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.