Conflicting Disads - Cannot Harm Innocent's and Honesty

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

What is missing is something that actually prevents the character from harming persons uninvolved in their conflict. Speculations about persons' 'goodness' is beside the point.

Self-Defense only. It's right there.

Look, you've got four versions:

1. Cannot attack or kill anyone
2. Cannot kill anyone (but may attack)
3. Cannot attack anyone not already attacking you (but may kill)
4. Cannot kill anyone not already attacking you

Now, you can call those what you want, but they called #4 "Cannot harm innocents." To be unable to attack/enslave someone who hasn't first tried to put a bullet in your head, you want #3 (aka Self-Defense Only).

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Self-Defense only. It's right there.

Look, you've got four versions:

1. Cannot attack or kill anyone
2. Cannot kill anyone (but may attack)
3. Cannot attack anyone not already attacking you (but may kill)
4. Cannot kill anyone not already attacking you

Now, you can call those what you want, but they called #4 "Cannot harm innocents." To be unable to attack/enslave someone who hasn't first tried to put a bullet in your head, you want #3 (aka Self-Defense Only).

Self-Defense Only: You only fight to
defend yourself or those in your care,
using only as much force as necessary
(no pre-emptive strikes allowed!). You
must do your best to discourage others
from starting fights. -15 points.

This is not the same as what I'm talking about.

It does not cover a person who can proactively go after bad-guys, but cannot harm innocents.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Neither of those things is what we are talking about.

What is missing is something that actually prevents the character from harming persons uninvolved in their conflict. Speculations about persons' 'goodness' is beside the point.

But you're right that any missing flavour of pacifism could be based off Total Pacifism with GM-generated limitations, but that's a general truism.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

This is not the same as what I'm talking about.

It does not cover a person who can proactively go after bad-guys, but cannot harm innocents.

I think you need to decide what you're actually talking about, since you're giving conflicting messages here.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I think you need to decide what you're actually talking about, since you're giving conflicting messages here.

There's no inconsistency. I guess you must have interpreted by use of the word 'conflict' as relating to a momentary melee, but I meant it as inclusive of the overall conflict between them and whoever the bad-guys are.