Cannot Harm Innocents

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't agree. The Pacifism disadvantages generally don't specify WHY you stay within the stated restrictions; they state only that you do. They seem a closer fit to "have some kind of ethical rule" than most of the other self-imposed disadvantages. In fact, tying them to "caring about innocents" or the like seems to move them away from "self-chosen" and closer to the kind of disadvantage for which you could have a self-control roll.

A complete character would have reason why they had that rule. There are other possibilities why they'd have that rule, like for example being a robot programmed with it but for most characters it would be good roleplaying for a person with CHI to not totally ignore people who were subjected to assault or murder even if you aren't going to actively put yourself out there where you could be hurt too.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A complete character would have reason why they had that rule. There are other possibilities why they'd have that rule, like for example being a robot programmed with it but for most characters it would be good roleplaying for a person with CHI to not totally ignore people who were subjected to assault or murder even if you aren't going to actively put yourself out there where you could be hurt too.

Sure. But in the first place, that reason is not built into the rule itself, and the rule can be used to represent characters with quite different reasons for following it. And in the second place, while it might be good roleplaying to help innocents, and the GM is free to give eeps for doing so, that doesn't make it bad roleplaying to refrain from helping innocents, not at a level where you should be penalized all eeps for failing to help; such a penalty is not part of the rules for Pacifism. (In contrast, failing to help should carry a penalty if you have Sense of Duty, as it's specified in the rules for that trait.)

[This kind of distinction drawing can be important to people. For example, some years ago, I learned that our downstairs neighbor had been using heroin provided to her by her boyfriend. And I remarked on it to a friend, and said that I didn't think she ought to have faced criminal penalties for her drug use, but that I thought it made her an undesirable neighbor. That made no sense to my friend, but it made sense to me: addicts were more likely than other people to commit various crimes, needing to support their habits, and I would want them to be penalized for such crimes, but not for the drug use itself. The fact that you don't understand where other people draw moral lines doesn't mean that they CAN'T draw the lines that way.]

[malloyd]

[QUOTE=Fred Brackin;2387789]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Cannot Harm Innocents is, for example, a lot like the standard formulation of libertarianism, "force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use."

That looks like Pacifism:Self-Defense Only to me rather than Cannot Harm Innocents.

I still think the intent of CHI is simply a less restricted form of Self Defense only. As I've said in these discussions before "innocent" in this context draws heavily on the *original* meaning of the word, which is the anonym of noxious, not of wicked or guilty. You are allowed to harm things that are noxious - that is which could be harmful (to yourself and maybe others) - even if they are not actively threatening right at the moment (which would be required for Self Defense).

The more convoluted readings seem like both serious over-reach to me, and don't mesh with the cost at all. Actually *forcing* you to take an action rather than restricting your options is right out

[Black Leviathan]

Imagine how extreme Total Non Violence Pacifism would be if it were defined by your inaction rather than just your action. No, Pacifism governs what you may do, not what you may decline to do.

If your behavior caused the situation where this innocent person's life was in danger you'd do everything in your power to keep them from harm, but if you're a baker your move to stop someone from being attacked would much more likely be to try to talk sense to the attacker than to pick up an improvised weapon and try to do battle with them. As well the attacker isn't necessarily guilty in any provable sense if you don't know why they're attacking someone, so you wouldn't feel it was acceptable to attack them until they're actually harming someone.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The Pacifism disadvantages generally don't specify WHY you stay within the stated restrictions; they state only that you do.

A GM who will not accept a character with CHI abandoning innocents who were put into danger by no action of the character can certainly require an appropriate prerequisite Disadvantage, such as Sense of Duty, but I don't think it should be assumed such a trait is part of CHI. Granted, any GM can run their campaigns as they see fit, but we're talking about the default of how the trait is meant to work.

I will note, however, that of the five forms of Pacifism, three of them - Cannot Kill, Self Defense Only, and Total Nonviolence - do have something like the above built in, as they require you to try to stop others from acting in the way you refuse to act (so you have to try to stop your allies from killing foes, starting fights, or engaging in any sort of combat, respectively). So, it makes sense someone would generalize this to apply to Cannot Harm Innocents as well (Reluctant Killer won't get lumped in, however, as it specifically notes you don't have any issues with your allies killing).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I will note, however, that of the five forms of Pacifism, three of them - Cannot Kill, Self Defense Only, and Total Nonviolence - do have something like the above built in, as they require you to try to stop others from acting in the way you refuse to act (so you have to try to stop your allies from killing foes, starting fights, or engaging in any sort of combat, respectively). So, it makes sense someone would generalize this to apply to Cannot Harm Innocents as well (Reluctant Killer won't get lumped in, however, as it specifically notes you don't have any issues with your allies killing).

However, "will not accept your allies killing people" or even "will not accept anyone killing people" isn't the same as "won't allow anyone to die" (from disasters, accidents, diseases, hunger and thirst, exposure, etc.).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

However, "will not accept your allies killing people" or even "will not accept anyone killing people" isn't the same as "won't allow anyone to die" (from disasters, accidents, diseases, hunger and thirst, exposure, etc.).

True. Personally, I feel this aspect should have been divorced from all forms of Pacifism. Someone with Cannot Kill won't personally kill anyone (or leave someone to die due to something the character did), but shouldn't have to stop their allies from doing the same, unless they also have an appropriate Sense of Duty or Code of Honor. Himura Kenshin (Rurouni Kenshin) and Vash the Stampede (Trigun) are good examples of characters who have both Pacifism: Cannot Kill* and a Sense of Duty (to people in general for the former, to all living creatures for the latter). I think fictional examples of characters who have these forms of Pacifism without a corresponding Sense of Duty or Code of Honor are fairly rare, and combined with perhaps over-correcting vs Munchkinism, the traits got conflated.

*Vash's Pacifism would need an Enhancement to also apply to animals; he appears to only be willing to kill plants (a man's gotta eat) and mindless machines.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Varyon

A GM who will not accept a character with CHI abandoning innocents who were put into danger by no action of the character can certainly require an appropriate prerequisite Disadvantage, such as Sense of Duty, but I don't think it should be assumed such a trait is part of CHI. Granted, any GM can run their campaigns as they see fit, but we're talking about the default of how the trait is meant to work.

I will note, however, that of the five forms of Pacifism, three of them - Cannot Kill, Self Defense Only, and Total Nonviolence - do have something like the above built in, as they require you to try to stop others from acting in the way you refuse to act (so you have to try to stop your allies from killing foes, starting fights, or engaging in any sort of combat, respectively). So, it makes sense someone would generalize this to apply to Cannot Harm Innocents as well (Reluctant Killer won't get lumped in, however, as it specifically notes you don't have any issues with your allies killing).

Note however that I'm only visualizing it as a quirk level degree of concern for others, something that can be basically ignored when it happens to actually be difficult.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Cannot Harm Innocents rules out lethal force against people who will cart you off to the gulags.

Guess it depends on what B148 means by "serious harm".

The actual text "lethal force" is a lot more specific than "harm" while the text "a foe that is attempting to do you serious harm" is a lot more specific than "innocents" so the advantage is functionally "cannot use lethal force against those attempting you serious harm" not "cannot harm innocents".

Of course Batman would tell us that it's not "lethal force" to break legs/arms and maybe even shoot someone in the foot, but I guess it does prevent obvious options for low-DX self-defense like shooting a kidnapper in the chest.

Originally Posted by TGLS

Pacifism towards people not initiating force against anybody is probably at best a quirk.

if we compare that to Reluctant Killer this is actually more restrictive on two points:

1) complete pacifism (not just a penalty to hit)
2) with all harmful attacks (not just deadly ones)

but of course also less restrictive due to lacking an exemption for the violent

3) can't risk killing those attacking you
4) can't risk killing those attacking allies

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Honestly I think it would be a bit more cut down than that. Self Defense Only rules out violence in aid of someone else. Cannot Harm Innocents rules out lethal force against people who will cart you off to the gulags. .

Dubious. It's intended to keep you from killing police officers just doing their legitimate job, but if you are just arbitrarily going to be taken off to be tortured or something that's a bit different.