Security Clearance - why is it worth anything?

[Figleaf23]

I'm reading Security Clearance, and to me it seems like unless your campaign is going to involve characters misusing their positions of trust, there is no value in return for the points of this trait.

But maybe my imagination is failing me. Would anyone like to comment?

[gruundehn]

It can also be that the agency issuing the Security Clearance can be considered as a form of Contact. That agency then supplies information to the party which uses it to advance the plot. This does not need to involve abusing the information or violating the Security Clearance. Personal experience, I held a Top Secret (and mostly used a Secret) clearance while in the Air Force, I can still use the information I learned, some of it still classified, without breaching the classification. I can talk, in general terms, about what I did and even about the equipment to some extent and relate that knowledge and my experiences to other situations without violating security. There is a fine line and someone without personal experience in watching for that line may not understand it but it can be done. I hope this helps.

[Varyon]

Much of this falls under the idea of abusing one's clearance, but...

When the PC's are stranded in the desert, the soldier with SC knows where a nearby classified military base is located, saving the party.

When the BBEG tries to escape in a stolen experimental fighter jet, the test pilot with SC knows that even a little damage to the intakes will result in it blowing up once the villain kicks on the afterburners - and promptly shoots said intakes. This is a case where he isn't violating trust, so long as he doesn't tell the others why the fighter suddenly exploded after the villain made his getaway.

When traveling in the ocean, the sailor with SC knows about the region(s) where compasses don't point to true north (or similar odd events), allowing the party to either avoid them or exploit them to avoid pursuit.

When dealing with a rogue AI, the programmer with SC knows a bit of how it works and its history, allowing him to either predict its next move or find a clever way of trapping it in a loop.

[Terwin]

look at it this way:
You can tell your team to fly under 850 feet through valley X without telling them classified information about the next generation Russian SAM site or that the CIA knows that that valley is defended by a terrorist group with ties to the Russian Mafia.

You can also give step by step instructions over the radio how to deactivate the stolen nuclear missile without giving any of the top-secret specifications of that missile.

Not to mention the plot options related to 'not officially affiliated with our organization/government'.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm reading Security Clearance, and to me it seems like unless your campaign is going to involve characters misusing their positions of trust, there is no value in return for the points of this trait.

Knowing secrets can allow me to plan my actions without giving away what those secrets are. For example, if I know the schedule for the enemy's secret police patrols or the fact that they've just developed poison gas X which is counteracted by antidote Y (and it's a secret on our side as well because we don't want them to know that we know), I can time my movements and those of my adventuring companions accordingly and stock up on antidote Y without necessarily letting anybody know why we're doing that.

[ronom]

Clearance allows you to know where certain people are, and explains why you are in a lethal force area like government data centers and nuke depots.

[The Colonel]

More prosaically, it determines who gets invited into a given facility and who gets to hang around in reception (at best) waiting for them...

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

More prosaically, it determines who gets invited into a given facility and who gets to hang around in reception (at best) waiting for them...

Or when you ask at the Air Force base about that mysterious screaming noise last night, do you get a complete refusal to say anything about it, or a confirmation that they have no idea what it was either. Or an assurance that they know what it was and that it was nothing to worry about.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm reading Security Clearance, and to me it seems like unless your campaign is going to involve characters misusing their positions of trust, there is no value in return for the points of this trait.

But maybe my imagination is failing me. Would anyone like to comment?

If Inspector X of the Imperial Interstellar Detective Service asks a database for information on a given suspect and has Clearance above a certain point he is given that information. Below that he is converted into fishfood. The limited security clearance is one of the factors that Inspector X has to take into account. It might for instance tell that A) Inspector X's suspect is neferious enough to get into the database, and B) the Empire has some reason not to want it's normal police service to bother him. Which might in turn have a link to his crime; it might indicate for instance that the crime was in fact a political assassination sponsored by the Imperial government. On the other hand, if so it indicates that the Imperial government is using someone clumsy enough to get into a database as a triggerman. Which means something interesting is going on that Inspector X isn't allowed to know about. Thus when the PC playing Inspector X is well titilated, the GM can send him home and be sure he will come back out of curiosity.

[Anaraxes]

And to risk stating the obvious, the points only matter when some characters have SC and some don't. The examples above all illustrate this sort of differential knowledge, which is an advantage for some characters.

If everyone on the team has an SC (they're black ops special forces, say), then SC can just be a campaign advantage and the cost is irrelevant.

And as with any advantage, it's up to the player and GM to make it worth the points by its appearance in play. If they don't think it will actually come up that much, then the GM is justified in the reducing the cost for that setting -- or the player just won't take the Advantage (and they'll never miss the lack of something they weren't planning to use anyway).