Giving mental disadvantages as results of behaviour?

[Celjabba]

I don't see what it would achieve, unless you expect him to act as an NPC sometimes. (or the character happen to be played by several players).
Even in that case, bloodlust is perhaps not a perfect fit.
As described, a controllable disad (Quirk level bloodlust) would be more appropriate.

On the other hand, gaining social (dis)ads is a logical outcome: reputation, ennemies, ...

Another possible explanation would be to replace another disadvantage: if the character have, for example, a coh:chivalrous but consistently roleplay a murder-hobo instead, it may be adequate to switch disadvantages instead of docking him xp for bad roleplay ...
In which case, go with full bloodlust, so that he could be disadvantaged by failed control rolls.

[Vodrilus]

Thanks for the input, guys. :) I think McAllister hit the nail on the head:

Originally Posted by McAllister

Essentially, we don't know how to help you accomplish your goals because we don't know what they are.

The question of my goals is in some sense pertinent. The main goal in my campaing is naturally fun/engagement for the whole group. This doesn't really have much to do with the disad question. I'm merely entertaining it as a "maybe fun sometimes" thing, perhaps to emulate a kind of Aristotelian virtue system ("We are what we repeatedly do."). I'm a sucker for personal development, and this also naturally translates to my role-playing style. Are our actual choices limited by the actions that we have performed before? The question I asked is therefore quite theoretical, and perhaps vague. This might have application with other disads such as Charitable (perhaps through very intense role-playing of getting to know the suffering of others), Cowardice (constantly running from any danger, however trivial), Overconfidence (constantly taking on any challenge, and miraculously succeeding) or even Sadism (through finding that the PC actually likes inflicting pain).

I'll try to make myself clear: I'm not going to force the player to take this disad. That would break the implicit contract of trust between me and the players, since we have already established a kind of player autonomy when it comes to the PC's (though I actually crafted them in the first place for a one-off adventure... the perils of becoming the go-to guy.).

Originally Posted by McAllister

That said, I'd offer the player the opportunity to take Bloodlust, and give them the points for it based on their control number.

That might work even in this campaign, yes. But knowing my players, I would be slightly worried about this idealistic mechanic turning into a point generator. :)

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think you should hand out disads that either indicate a chosen ethical standard or involve a loss of self-control, especially as there are experience point penalties for not roleplaying the disad. Players can choose to give up control of their characters' actions, or lose it to an attack such as Mind Control (Conditioning) or to a Fright Check, but GM fiat will be resented. (SNIP!)

Social traits gained through action are a must, yes. And the point about experience is partially valid, too. B121 states that the GM may penalize the player for bad roleplaying (ie. attempting self-control rolls too often) by awarding less points. Like many rules, it's optional, and in this case, wouldn't be consistent.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm kind of baffled at the idea that you wouldn't want him to stop.

I don't have an opinion one way or another.

I'm trying to determine if the OP is wondering about how certain rules apply to certain game actions, or if he is inquiring about how to handle a player who is breaching campaign verisimilitude.

If the latter, I would recommend against passive-aggressive use of GM in-game power, but just tell the player that his approach in this regard is not wanted.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Vodrilus

That might work even in this campaign, yes. But knowing my players, I would be slightly worried about this idealistic mechanic turning into a point generator. :)

I'm not sold on the idea "you are what you repeatedly do" as pertains to humans, but with regards to character into whose lives we necessarily have only a small window, it makes sense. More importantly, seems like a fun sort of roleplaying addition.

Here's my idea: short-circuit the point generation by bundling an appropriate Advantage with the Disadvantage and presenting it as something that can be modified within thematic constraints. In this case, say to the player "I've noticed you've been playing Albert as pretty bloodthirsty. How would you feel about taking the Bloodthirsty (12-) disadvantage? I know that's normally worth -10 points, so I'd throw in two levels of Social Regard: Feared in the bargain." Or if the character has been diligently cleaning up after the killing, offer two levels of Higher Purpose: Getting Away With it. Or the player could say "I don't see Albert as being feared by ordinary people, since he doesn't advertise that he kills people all the time, but maybe word's gotten around to some shady sorts of people who'd appreciate it. How about I get 4 points of Streetwise and 6 points of Contacts in the underworld?"

How's that strike you?

[Gnome]

I have found that by default, my players want to make characters who are free to kill whenever they please. Therefore, if I don't want a party of murderous psychopaths, I have to explicitly state this during character creation. Which is to say, in certain games I'll require that PCs take one of a list of "good guy" disadvantages: Charitable, Honesty, Code of Honor, Pacifism, Selfless, Sense of Duty, etc. I think most normal people have some "good" disadvantages (call me an optimist), and even somewhat morally compromised non-sociopaths probably just have higher self-control numbers.

This has worked well for my current DF game, in which I wanted an old school rpg feel while simultaneously spinning a heroic tale of myth and magic. Classic murder hobos wouldn't do, as they can't plausibly be world-saving heroes--I needed a group who would be motivated to save the lost children, overthrow the evil tyrant, try to befriend the natives rather than slaughter them without thinking, etc.
So I told the players what I wanted, and they delivered! They were interested in the challenge of accomplishing their goals without always resorting to violence (this being DF, violence is still necessary quite often, but always in the service of Good, or at least in a way that's consistent with some moral principle).

[Lord Azagthoth]

What's the profile of an average human...
All attributes 10 and no disads.

So he can kill, murder, maim, as long as no one knows it? People think they have control over their mental disabilities but most often they don't.

The drug user thinks he's not an addict but he becomes more and more of an drug addict each time he uses and still says all out that he isn't an addict.

I would certainly penalize your murderous character with a disad (most likely with a limitation to reflect that he only kills when he thinks he can get away with it).

I have such a character in the group. he claims to be a light side Force user but kills bounded, defenseless prisoners. In a fight kills opponents while not considering other options, etc. He might not like it being penalized, but again, if he wants to play a killing Jedi, he should play a Dark Jedi or Sith (but then he loses his bonuses on healing powers which he doesn't like).

But afterward, if he changes his actions to reflect his character more properly, the penalty can be dismissed after a while.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Gnome

I think most normal people have some "good" disadvantages (call me an optimist), and even somewhat morally compromised non-sociopaths probably just have higher self-control numbers.

Yes, it's a serious mistake to think "normal person" is equivalent to no disadvantages in GURPS. Most normal people have quite a few of them. Dependents are after all pretty normal. Sense of Duty (family and/or friends) is common. So are 5 point Codes of Honor (religious ones or just "civilized person").

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm kind of baffled at the idea that you wouldn't want him to stop.

I'm not surprised by it anymore. There really is a common sort of gamer who sees playing a character with a consistent personality that you didn't get disadvantage points for as wrong, or at least an error in character creation for not insisting on some points for it.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Gnome

I'll require that PCs take one of a list of "good guy" disadvantages: Charitable, Honesty, Code of Honor, Pacifism, Selfless, Sense of Duty, etc. I think most normal people have some "good" disadvantages (call me an optimist), and even somewhat morally compromised non-sociopaths probably just have higher self-control numbers.

It is indeed common for people to be charitable, honest or have a code of honor etc.

However that does not at all mean that they have those GURPS disadvantages! Having Charitable does not just mean that you behave in a way that is generally considered charitable. It means you feel compelled to help "even legitimate enemies" and that you "must offer assistance, even if that means violating orders or walking into a potential trap".

GURPS disadvantages often represent rather extreme character traits. Quirk level disadvantages are often more appropriate for the character traits of normal people.

Originally Posted by malloyd

So are 5 point Codes of Honor (religious ones or just "civilized person").

Most people who have a code of honor don't follow it strictly enough to qualify for the Code of Honor disadvantage. For that disadvantage you have to follow it "at all times" and "You will do nearly anything – perhaps even risk death – to avoid the label “dishonorable” (whatever that means).".

[sir_pudding]

Again, if you reckon that a reasonable person in your setting would be horrified if they did these things, you can use Fright Checks (with Stress and Derangement if you really want to enforce long term trauma). This is totally supported by the existing rules. Tactical Shooting suggests that you roll Fright Checks when you kill or wound someone or see someone get injured.