Conflicting Disads - Cannot Harm Innocent's and Honesty

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I thijk you're reaading far too much into "must do your best". A disad which not only required you to avoid some forms of violence atgsint enemiess but also required you to _inflict_ limited forms of violence upon your theoretical friends when they appear to be violating your moral code even when that would be likely to endanger them would be worth far more than 10 to 15pts.

It's debatable if even Honesty requires you to do that and it still allows you to use real violence on legal targets. "Can not harm X and must phsycially enfore that even upon friends and allies" is a doozy of a Disad.

I'm quite condfident that "must do your best" is in the context of friendly discussion and interaction just as the "capture" clause applies to lawful capture by respectable authorities and not slavers and kidnappers.

It should be noted that for the first two it says "must do your best", and only for Total Nonviolence does it say "must do your nonviolent best". Why the distinction if all are assumed to be nonviolent resistance only to friendlies attempting to kill or harm others when they don't have to do so?

I find it hard to take a "Cannot Kill" Pacifist that wouldn't attempt to defend a wounded and now-helpless enemy's life against a friend with Bloodlust's attempts to go for the kill, even if it meant forcibly restraining them or knocking them out / choker-holding them (or at least trying). It's not Vow: Won't kill others oneself, after all, it's a genuine belief in the value of life.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

The texts say:

Cannot Kill"You must do your best to keep your companions from killing"
I read this to include much more than arguing, but to include anything else besides killing your comrades or permanently harming them, like sabotage, holding them back, or violently incapacitating them (all of the above only in cases where it wouldn't risk them or you dying or being permanently harmed at the hands of enemy combatants).

Self-Defense Only"You must do your best to discourage others from starting fights"
I read this as similar to above, except that violent incapacitation is off the table.

Total Nonviolence"You must do your nonviolent best to discourage violent behavior in others"
Closest to "just arguing", but it could include getting in the way, being really intrusive, blocking blows meant for others, and, in the case of violence meant for non-threats (like tied up people about to be tortured) showing a willingness to take damage yourself to prevent others from committing acts of violence.

All of which sounds like much more than a quirk where you annoyingly argue about it (which does sound like a quirk at best). "Do your best" seems more strong than that to me.

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

It should be noted that for the first two it says "must do your best", and only for Total Nonviolence does it say "must do your nonviolent best". Why the distinction if all are assumed to be nonviolent resistance only to friendlies attempting to kill or harm others when they don't have to do so?

I find it hard to take a "Cannot Kill" Pacifist that wouldn't attempt to defend a wounded and now-helpless enemy's life against a friend with Bloodlust's attempts to go for the kill, even if it meant forcibly restraining them or knocking them out / choker-holding them (or at least trying). It's not Vow: Won't kill others oneself, after all, it's a genuine belief in the value of life.

Your interpretation looks about right to me. As I was trying to demonstrate by comparing the limited form of Cannot Kill with Reluctant Killer, the "proselytizing" aspect of the standard version of CK seems to be worth a fairly large fraction of the disadvantage's cost.