GURPS On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

[gjc8]

I'd say someone without Reluctant Killer or other relevant disadvantages would generally not be affected by committing "ordinary" violence, which is to say in-combat killings of armed adults. That's the focus on "adventurer-normal" rather than normal-normal.

If you accidentally shoot a 5-year kid who wanders into your Wait, that's different. That's outside "adventurer-normal", and so Fright Check territory (barring something else relevant, like Callous). And the 5-year old kid is an extreme example. Finding out that the (adult) person you just shot was actually unarmed might trigger a Fright Check, as could shooting a child soldier even if they were an actual threat.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Such a positive side effect from a disadvantage should at least be a perk level advantage, if not more, depending on how strict rules for PTSD are applied.

You mean like the Perk Controllable Disadvantage: Callous?

Callous is a Disadvantage because it gives you a -3 to two skills, one of which is a fairly important one, a -1 to reaction rolls from a fairly large group of people* and because if you are in a situation where it would be appropriate to show sympathy, you have to use skills like Acting to avoid suffering a further reaction penalty for an inappropriate approach.

It does net you a few incidental benefits, such as a bonus to Intimidation and Interrogation. And, as the Fright Check rules already assume that they are modified for Advantages and Disadvantages**, it is entirely appropriate to rule that Callous people receive a bonus for Fright Checks caused by the shock of committing violent acts against others. Or even waive the roll entirely.

If a character can elect to have the Disadvantage apply only when he wants it, he effectively has an Advantage, yes. Which is why the trait I clearly mentioned is a Perk, not a [-5] Disadvantage.

*You interact more than once with a lot of people.
**For example, Xenophilia gives a +1 to +4 to Fright Check against monsters.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

TS' and MA's and HT's notes on Fright Checks caused by being shot at, losing limbs etc. most cover the 'victim' side of things. I'm surprised there is little to no consideration for 'WhatHaveIDone' fright checks, e.g. when a shooter reflexively headshots a pop-up target on a Wait, only to find it's a 12-y.o. boy after combat (but IIRC shooting an ally accidentally - different thing - has been mentioned somewhere).

Reread the rules in Tactical Shooting. It most certainly allows for fright checks when you kill.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by p34

Although combat might be considered “ordinary” for
GURPS characters, the GM may require a Fright Check on the
turn after especially traumatic events.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't like the idea that normal people in GURPS are immune to things that normal people are not immune to in real life.

If a player says to me; "I wanna play a principled, kind, sensitive man who can nevertheless be perfectly ruthless when called upon and act in a coldly rational manner without regard to his own conscience or any weakness"; I'll say 'Fine, take very high Will and the Controllable Disadvantage: Callous Perk'. Because normal people are making Will rolls at hefty penalties when they decide to act in a way that humans are generally programmed, by biology or social conditioning, to shy from.

Most PC's are not "normal" people...if they were they wouldnt be built on 150 pts, etc, etc, etc....

Now if a player wants to play a normal person I might suggest some disads such as Reluctant Killer etc.

But most PC backround stories are such that they are well outside the mainstream...

The example in my post is a "trouble shooter" in a TL 8/9 work with many analogs to the current world...except society is more a roman parallel and GODS are more manifestly real and meddlesome.

His backround is former paratrooper (combat vet with a rough WWII US paratrooper career track/experience) who was with the Imperial Investigative Service (FBI more or less) til a head bump with a major religious order caused him to resign for the good of the service. He kills when he has to...if he can "apprehend" rather than kill he will...but if the target has a gun out and is shooting it is center mass and the hack with yelling halt. If I get the drop on him I will give him the chance to be intelligent otherwise...

Havent had the OP's scenario come up but with his backround I would expect he would do his very best to hold it together so that his personal screw up/problem would not jam up a team member...once he has covered those obligations he would allow himself to look in the mirror and see the horror he had become...doing so before would just make him an even worse excuse for a human being...IN HIS OPINION. He is not in a Chambara Gun Fu over the top campaign, he is not para normal, he is "normal" but he is far from average...what you are describing is more average than normal. There are certainly normal people who could shoot a kid by accident in combat, realize it, wall of the feelings, continue the combat op and fall to pieces later.

Unless the PC's say otherwise with disads I give them the room to play what they have chosen.

Further note my 2nd GURPS PC was a healer/martial artist with Vow Use no Weapons Pacifism Cannot Kill and SOD Humanity. He was a whale of fun and I would have no problem running him again...but he to was normal but not average.


No critisism intended...I understand our campaigns/concepts are on different wavelengths..just wanted to clarify.

[smurf]

Reluctant killer may be a good rule of thumb.

If you were in the armed forces/police you may choose to have it or not. But the uni professor, librarian, school teacher, firefighter etc should have it. The question is should it be a disadvantage because nearly everyone has it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by smurf

Reluctant killer may be a good rule of thumb.

If you were in the armed forces/police you may choose to have it or not. But the uni professor, librarian, school teacher, firefighter etc should have it. The question is should it be a disadvantage because nearly everyone has it.

It should be a disadvantage because it is much better written up that way than as a bunch of scattered modifiers and rules, and an Advantage that says to ignore them.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by smurf

Reluctant killer may be a good rule of thumb.

If you were in the armed forces/police you may choose to have it or not. But the uni professor, librarian, school teacher, firefighter etc should have it. The question is should it be a disadvantage because nearly everyone has it.

Depends on the setting...I could definitely see setting up a campaign where it was REQUIRED for PC's unless they have explicit permission from the GM to do otherwise...

Hmm will have to let that perk a bit...was cranking up something to GM anyhoo

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by smurf

. . .The question is should it be a disadvantage because nearly everyone has it.

It's absolutely a disadvantage because it limits the PC's range of choices. Whether such a disad counts against the campaign disad limit, if there is one, is another matter.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't like the idea that normal people in GURPS are immune to things that normal people are not immune to in real life.

If a player says to me; "I wanna play a principled, kind, sensitive man who can nevertheless be perfectly ruthless when called upon and act in a coldly rational manner without regard to his own conscience or any weakness"; I'll say 'Fine, take very high Will and the Controllable Disadvantage: Callous Perk'. Because normal people are making Will rolls at hefty penalties when they decide to act in a way that humans are generally programmed, by biology or social conditioning, to shy from.

I agree completely, though I do think that this is probably one of those play-style issues that falls under the 'realistic AND gritty' minority. I think a lot of games, with their challenge-solution focus, tend to ignore certain role-playing issues of combat because that'd force players to choose options that are 'wrong' tactically, but 'right' ethically. For example, fighting to wound in any case where you're not sure if the other person is trying to kill you or not. That is foolish in a gaming sense--if you're unsure if he's trying to kill you, you should certainly take him out. But it is perfectly natural and right in an ethical and philosophical sense--you wouldn't want to kill someone just for tackling you unexpectedly in the middle of an argument.

And even if someone can function through such stressful situations even in the midst of such social horror--perk level at least--he shouldn't be off scot-free from negative effects. Reactions should be applied liberally at first, to represent others learning about how he killed a man in cold blood, etc. If the person recognizes these reactions, he should probably make some sort of check. On a success, he has the sense to question what he did, but rationalizes it to his satisfaction. On a failure, the shame that others put on him makes him wonder 'what have I become?' at which point he might start to qualify for PTSD effects in non-combat situations but that he shunts away when his killer instinct is in charge.

Or something.

[Kyle Aaron]

Generation Kill will be useful to watch for anyone with an interest in this topic. In this series we see a variety of characters with a variety of reactions to a variety of combat situations and killing.

The last scene sums it up well.