Questions about mean, antisocial Disadvantages

[Solomon Draak]

I think a Callous and Sadistic Bully with Bloodlust and Berserk mabye could be playable if his disadvantages has high self control values.

Basically, he would love to humiliate and torment more or less anyone, but it wouldn't do that without a clear opportunity, and even then he would be able to restrain himself most of the time.

Even when he fails to restrain himself, he would not be compelled to kill outside a fight. Actually, if he's one of those sadist who prefer psychological cruelty over physical abuse, he may even content himself with obnoxious bullying and demeaning behavior.

Berserk kicks in when a lethal fight begins or when seriously hurt, same for bloodlust - more or less.

So, that extremely vile person could be held more or less in check, as not he's not involved in fights or trusted with the care of defenseless people.

Obviously, if we also add Bad Temper to the mix, here we have a living ticking bomb.


- - -

Question: how much would be worth the Mitigator factor "only when he doesn't take his medications"?
I would say -50%. ( but only -20% if the medications have heavy and unpleasant side effects )

Only the most dangerous emotionally unstable individuals will ever have any one of those at a "no self control roll" level to the point that ALL bar fights would end in murder, but "normal" levels of Bloodlust WILL almost inevitably result in a murder eventually. It's like the cop with anger issues, he may spend years being a bad aggressive cop but no more than that, until one day he goes too far and end up killing someone...

To behave that way, the individual should also have Bad Temper. I had the impression that Bad Temper is about getting angry for trivial things, Bloodlust means uncontrollable killer instinct in real, mortal combat.
I've read - I don't remember in what supplement - that many Vietnam veterans could be considered that way ( with Bloodlust ): people who behave normal , even polite, when in normal situation but with murderous fighting instincts that kicks in if involved in a fight.

Also in the description of the disadvantage, it says that a character with Bloodlust uses his fists in a bar brawl like everyone else... unlesss - I guess - a knife or broken bottle pops outs.

So, at extreme level:

* Uncontrollable Bad Temper: lashes out and insults ( but not necessarily attacks ) at the slightest provocation, all times.
* Uncontrollable Bloodlust: always tries to kill his opponents in serious fights, may ignore or just react verbally to non physical provocations.

*Uncontrollable Bad Temper + uncontrollable Bloodlust: murderous rage at the slightest provocation... but could still act polite in unprovoked and dealt with maximum caution.

- - -

I have the impression that Bad Temper and Bloodlust are somewhat passive disadvantages, which means that if unprovoked, the character is more or less in control.

Bully and Sadist are more active, the character actually wants to act on those impulses, given the opportunity. It may or may not be less provocable, however.


I think that spree killers and serial killers are more precisely described by uncontrollable Compulsive Behavior - murder.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

Real people with antisocial / psychopathic traits (which would be represented in GURPS by things like Callous and Sadism) often do seem to feel love towards some other people. In some cases, this seems to somewhat mitigate their behaviour, but they often seem rather oblivious to the fact that there is anything 'wrong' about their treatment of others, so they will often be quite unpleasant towards their loved ones and 'justify' it with beliefs like 'it isn't actually a big deal' or 'it's doing them a favour by toughening them up'. Even if they recognise that their behaviour is harmful, they may 'snap' under stress and act out against people they care for. In game terms, I think a bonus to self-control rolls is appropriate, but not simply ignoring the disadvantage.

I don't think that's quite consistent with the rules. In general, if you have a self-control number, you're not supposed to roll for self-control all the time, and in fact the GM is supposed to deny you experience for a session in which you roll inappropriately. The self-control number is for situations where there's a definite reason to resist---it's against your interests, it would sabotage your mission, it would hurt someone you care about---and ordinarily I would make it unmodified: you're already getting a benefit from the person being someone you care for, in that you're allowed to roll at all (and with no penalty in experience for doing so).

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Exactly so. Characters with Callous can have people they care about very much, or even who they care about the idea of caring about. They can have sophisticated ethics systems.

But the instant there is no reason not to hurt someone to further their causes (be they noble or base) they will not hesitate to do it, and any regrets will be very abstract. And it will terrify and turn away people who see it.

My first Gurps Character had Callous. I think the other players explained it as he was "ruthless". A mind controller who didn't hesitate to invade and alter minds any time it would be convenient. He saw killing as wasteful, but nothing more. It was an interesting character.

Sherlock homes is often depicted with Callous.

Callous is basically low level Sociopathy, or "functional sociopath".

Callous + Sadism is serial killer psychopath

Bully shows elements of "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Narcissists have a pathological need to belittle others.

Both Narcissists and Sociopaths can be hell for partners and relatives, so I vehemently disagree that "loves ones" are exempt from their harsh mistreatment.

Sociopaths (Callous) are much better at "disguising" themselves than Narcissists; the Sociopath is typically the ultra-greedy corporate ladder climber that have no qualms at lying or putting a knife (usually metaphorical, but sometimes a real one) on the back of anyone they need in order to climb to the top, while Bullies (Narcissists) are jerks who take pleasure on pushing others around and show their own superiority, sometimes even to their own detriment. So it is VERY different; a Sociopath (Callous) may even fake empathy (but that would be more like a Dark Empath).

A Sociopath however CAN also be a Narcissist (Bully + Callous). In this case you'll have someone who is TRULY an unbelievable jerk like no other you could possibly concoct; pure Narcissists usually like to "just" humiliate others (which can cause serious psychological traumas, yes), and pure Sociopaths dont go out of their way to screw others if this doesnt benefit them, but a Narcissist Sociopath WILL most absolutely go out of their way just to cause problems to their poor victims.

I guess that the best example of a Narcissist Sociopath (Bully + Callous) that I can possibly think of would be from the story of Othello from Shakespeare (damn, one of my favorite stories and I forgot the name of the guy), where the villain places Othello in a web of lies and destroy his life out of pure jealousy and spite.

Sadism is natural in all humans - it's that cathartic pleasure we feel when the bad guy dies in the movie.
When it becomes pathological however, it's a sign of strong psychopathy.

Berserk is lack of emotional control, particularly anger. The person "snaps" under stress. The individual aflicted is not (necessarily) a sociopath or narcissist, but it is not right in the head, to a pathological level.

Bloodlust aint really... A thing. Not by itself at least. Alone, this disadvantage is more like what some fictional characters do. Combined with others, like Sadism, means a Serial Killer psychopath, or combined with Berserk means someone with such a strong emotional instability that the individual enters into a unstoppable murderous rampage every time he snaps (Berserk alone is the criminal that gets satified to send someone to the hospital).

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

Bloodlust aint really... A thing. Not by itself at least. Alone, this disadvantage is more like what some fictional characters do.

I think bloodlust might be a little bit cinematic...or gamey.
It's like playing Mortal Kombat, versus playing Mortal Kombat with the blood turned on.

I don't know if I would call that sadistic, or callous, I mean you're already beating people into pulps.
But seeing all that blood fly just adds to the spectacle, and basically, it's very unrealistic.

But there is something to it that bloodlust might tap into, but it's hard to deny ties to violence.
I mean, it's not easy to get the blood out of someone or something without hurting it in some way.

Edit/P.S.:
What would a cannibal who torments his victim because it makes the meat taste better be?
Callous or sadistic?

In way, it could be considered callous, because it serves a purpose that isn't the torment, but the result of it.
But, it certainly would require some sadism too.

That asked, if this is too off topic, then just disregard this kind of question.

[Solomon Draak]

What would a cannibal who torments his victim because it makes the meat taste better be?
Callous or sadistic?

It's not as weird as a question.
A popular butchery method in victorian England involved killing bulls by having them slowly mauled to death by attack dogs. The resulting meat was incredibly hard and dry due extreme adrenaline levels, and it was considered a delicacy.

I would say that if the butchers of that time were only in for the money, and the customers for the taste, they were all quite Callous.

Those who watched the bull's execution were Sadists indeed... at a socially acceptable level.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

I think Bloodlust is meant to simulate/represent fictional characters who act that way, rather than any real psychological condition or combination of defined conditions.

I generally think of Bloodlust as representing the way I used to play a lot of video games when I was younger. Good examples are Thief 2: The Metal Age and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. In both cases, typically anytime there were hostiles nearby, I'd make it a point to kill all of them, even if it wasn't necessary - although in cases where you were penalized for killing foes (such as the first level of Thief 2, where killing anybody was an instant Game Over), I would simply make due with knocking everyone out. For Thief 2, this often meant that with patrols of multiple foes, I would typically knock out the first few and backstab the last (knocking someone out with a blackjack was silent, but backstabbing with a sword wasn't), then either hack away at each unconscious body until it turned into a corpse or kill them in some other way (such as throwing them into sufficiently-deep water; unconscious foes will drown if you do so). For Metal Gear Solid 2, this would often mean that with foes I tranquilized or knocked out some other way, I'd shoot them in the head or heart (if I had a silenced lethal weapon and didn't need to worry about conserving ammunition) or I'd purposefully wake them up (by continuously picking them up and setting them back down initially, spraying them in the face with coolant later once I had that item) just so I could get them into a neck lock and snap their neck. I couldn't tell you why I felt compelled to always kill foes (I would simply knock out civilians in cases where it was risky to leave them running around to warn guards and the like), but I did. Playing games where one is penalized in some way for killing foes (the city basically decaying in Dishonored, getting less XP for lethal takedowns in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc) has pretty much broken me of that, even for games where killing instead of knocking out isn't penalized (like Cyberpunk 2077) although I do still find myself compelled to at least render all foes unconscious (I'll also typically go out of my way to kill foes that the lore indicates are absolutely horrible people).

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I generally think of Bloodlust as representing the way I used to play a lot of video games when I was younger. Good examples are Thief 2: The Metal Age and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. In both cases, typically anytime there were hostiles nearby, I'd make it a point to kill all of them, even if it wasn't necessary - although in cases where you were penalized for killing foes (such as the first level of Thief 2, where killing anybody was an instant Game Over), I would simply make due with knocking everyone out. For Thief 2, this often meant that with patrols of multiple foes, I would typically knock out the first few and backstab the last (knocking someone out with a blackjack was silent, but backstabbing with a sword wasn't), then either hack away at each unconscious body until it turned into a corpse or kill them in some other way (such as throwing them into sufficiently-deep water; unconscious foes will drown if you do so). For Metal Gear Solid 2, this would often mean that with foes I tranquilized or knocked out some other way, I'd shoot them in the head or heart (if I had a silenced lethal weapon and didn't need to worry about conserving ammunition) or I'd purposefully wake them up (by continuously picking them up and setting them back down initially, spraying them in the face with coolant later once I had that item) just so I could get them into a neck lock and snap their neck. I couldn't tell you why I felt compelled to always kill foes (I would simply knock out civilians in cases where it was risky to leave them running around to warn guards and the like), but I did. Playing games where one is penalized in some way for killing foes (the city basically decaying in Dishonored, getting less XP for lethal takedowns in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc) has pretty much broken me of that, even for games where killing instead of knocking out isn't penalized (like Cyberpunk 2077) although I do still find myself compelled to at least render all foes unconscious (I'll also typically go out of my way to kill foes that the lore indicates are absolutely horrible people).

I always say that understand psychopathy is easy. People always say "how could a human being do (insert some sick and macabre thing serial killers do)".

But all you have do to is play a modern day video-game.

I mean, of course we know that what we see there is not real, so we dont care. But that's not the point, the point is that a psychopath's total lack of empathy towards other humans feels like what we feel when we kill a NPC in a videogame.

Raise your hands how many here never slaughtered an entire city/village in Skyrim just because you guys were bored (and then reloaded to not mess the game), and laughed about it, you psychos!

Well, every time you got angry for messing something up, quick saved and slaughtered all the guards and a few civilians just to blow off some of the steam and then quick load, that's EXACTLY how a psychopath feels, but towards REAL people.

Anyway, there isnt any real kind of psychology pull towards "murder everybody I brawl, clash swords or exchange fire with".

An assassin might always double check on his victims, and may not spare anyone that stands in his way, but if he likes to kill he's probably Callous, and murders all of those not out of a pathological disease, but as a necessity of the trade. Therefore, said Assassin doesnt really have Bloodlust as a trait, and is perfectly fine with letting someone live if it benefits him. (if he enjoys, if he feels pleasure by killing, he probably has Sadism and/or Compulsive Behavior "Commiting Murder).

But Bloodlust by itself is a thing of fiction or for non-humans (killer bots, Golem servants etc). The pathology is the callousness or sadism and such, not the Bloodlust. Unless it's combined with Berserk, which means the indivual have a tendency to snap and get into a murderous rampage

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

An assassin might always double check on his victims, and may not spare anyone that stands in his way, but if he likes to kill he's probably Callous, and murders all of those not out of a pathological disease, but as a necessity of the trade. Therefore, said Assassin doesnt really have Bloodlust as a trait, and is perfectly fine with letting someone live if it benefits him. (if he enjoys, if he feels pleasure by killing, he probably has Sadism and/or Compulsive Behavior "Commiting Murder).

But Bloodlust by itself is a thing of fiction or for non-humans (killer bots, Golem servants etc). The pathology is the callousness or sadism and such, not the Bloodlust. Unless it's combined with Berserk, which means the indivual have a tendency to snap and get into a murderous rampage

Come to think of it, Bloodlust could be something more akin to a delusion of sorts. I know in some of the games I played, internally I justified always killing opponents as a way to make certain they wouldn't wake up and compromise me - even in games where enemies can't wake up (there's no mechanic for it) or where I already know I'll be long gone by the time they do (and the game doesn't track unconscious foes once you move on to the next map). A character with Bloodlust could simply be one who thinks anyone that is their outright enemy needs/deserves to die for any number of reasons. That patrolling guard might get in my way later, and if I were to just knock him out there's the risk he'll wake up and warn the others before I'm gone - best to kill him and hide the body. That soldier who I just took down might kill me or one of my mates in a later battle, or might be faking it to get the drop on us later, best to just slit his throat and be done with it. That surrendering general we're supposed to capture and take back to camp for interrogation might be able to escape and take intel to his troops, I should just shove a spear through his heart now and save us the headache. The knight we have pinned and could ransom for a hefty sum would probably wind up killing more peasants in the next war, and this knife here is just the right size for getting through his eyeslits.

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Come to think of it, Bloodlust could be something more akin to a delusion of sorts. I know in some of the games I played, internally I justified always killing opponents as a way to make certain they wouldn't wake up and compromise me - even in games where enemies can't wake up (there's no mechanic for it) or where I already know I'll be long gone by the time they do (and the game doesn't track unconscious foes once you move on to the next map). A character with Bloodlust could simply be one who thinks anyone that is their outright enemy needs/deserves to die for any number of reasons. That patrolling guard might get in my way later, and if I were to just knock him out there's the risk he'll wake up and warn the others before I'm gone - best to kill him and hide the body. That soldier who I just took down might kill me or one of my mates in a later battle, or might be faking it to get the drop on us later, best to just slit his throat and be done with it. That surrendering general we're supposed to capture and take back to camp for interrogation might be able to escape and take intel to his troops, I should just shove a spear through his heart now and save us the headache. The knight we have pinned and could ransom for a hefty sum would probably wind up killing more peasants in the next war, and this knife here is just the right size for getting through his eyeslits.

Yeah, in the line of work of soldiers and assassins, there are many REASONABLE justifications for murdering KOed targets, even if not immediately necessary or even obvious.

Bloodlust however is UNREASONABLE, and doesnt truly add up for rationalizations. It's more of an "I did it cuz I wanted it".

If someone were to have it, it would undoubtedly be a pathology and work like a sort of weird "code of honor: never show mercy".

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

Yeah, in the line of work of soldiers and assassins, there are many REASONABLE justifications for murdering KOed targets, even if not immediately necessary or even obvious.

Bloodlust however is UNREASONABLE, and doesnt truly add up for rationalizations. It's more of an "I did it cuz I wanted it".

If someone were to have it, it would undoubtedly be a pathology and work like a sort of weird "code of honor: never show mercy".

I'm saying the character will make up reasonable-sounding justifications, and may even believe them (they may even be true!), but the effect is that they tend to kill enemies when they really shouldn't.