Cannot Harm Innocents

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Plane

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

I'm judging the cost on a few points:
1) Most antagonists are initiating force in some manner. An oppressive empire is initiating force as part of its day-to-day operations. An invading army is definitionally initiating forcen . A drug lord is initiating force regularly to maintain his turf. The duke will rough up peasants who don't pay.
2) Even if the antagonist isn't initiating force, you can easily provoke them into initiating force. Even if you don't accept the argument that mere existence of the city guard/police/army/dogcatchers/taxman is initiating force, provoking them into attacking you is eminently doable.
3) Even failing the previous two, you can use the Bob trick. You bring in your pal Bob, have him start the fight, and get involved once the enemy counter-attacks.

[Ramidel]

You can be a supervillain with CHI if you refuse to shoot civilians, but that doesn't necessarily mean you feel any obligation to protect them from anyone.

[Black Leviathan]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

You can be a supervillain with CHI if you refuse to shoot civilians, but that doesn't necessarily mean you feel any obligation to protect them from anyone.

I think that's a tough road to run. Harming innocents by sicking your thugs on them or starting a fight that endangers innocents is still off the table. You'd have to try to save them from a danger you caused, even if it was just by you being in their vicinity when Superhero's attack you. But you could certainly make juice out of bad people. Anything that makes others not innocent in your ideology would make them eligible for punishment. You might be a deadly assassin of corrupt police or CEO's of companies the despoil the environment and you feel compelled to take action to protect the innocent.

[Pursuivant]

Given all the nuances presented it almost seems simpler to treat limited forms of Pacifism as limitations to Total Pacifism. The percentage cost of limitations would give both players and GMs a better sense of how restrictive a given form of Pacifism actually is.

Different limitations could be stacked to make more or less restrictive forms of limited Pacifism (e.g., "Cannot Kill Animals" or "Reluctant Killer (Elves Only)"). Enhancements could be added to make Total Pacifism even more dangerous (e.g., "Cannot Kill Animals" or "Cannot Use Active Defenses").

[benz72]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

You'd have to try to save them from a danger you caused, even if it was just by you being in their vicinity when Superhero's attack you.

I see that as beyond the scope. I think a villain having human shields is not incompatible with CHI, and actually the villain is counting on the hero also having CHI in his tactics. The villain CANNOT actually blow them up when he leaves to ensure the heroes stay behind to help casualties while he escapes, but he can hide in a hospital without having to try saving patients harmed BY OTHERS who come in to fight him.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Given all the nuances presented it almost seems simpler to treat limited forms of Pacifism as limitations to Total Pacifism. The percentage cost of limitations would give both players and GMs a better sense of how restrictive a given form of Pacifism actually is.

Yes, of course, but game-mechanically Pacifism pre-dates the formal codifying of how Limitations worked and in the 3→4 transition there was significant value placed on consistency with 3e.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Given all the nuances presented it almost seems simpler to treat limited forms of Pacifism as limitations to Total Pacifism. The percentage cost of limitations would give both players and GMs a better sense of how restrictive a given form of Pacifism actually is.

Different limitations could be stacked to make more or less restrictive forms of limited Pacifism (e.g., "Cannot Kill Animals" or "Reluctant Killer (Elves Only)"). Enhancements could be added to make Total Pacifism even more dangerous (e.g., "Cannot Kill Animals" or "Cannot Use Active Defenses").

Even if you go up to total Pacifism, though, it specifies that you cannot attack anyone and must try to dissuade others from doing so; but it doesn't say anything about having to help others who are in need. So "may not harm a human being" is covered, but "or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" is not.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I'm judging the cost on a few points:

1) Most antagonists are initiating force in some manner. An oppressive empire is initiating force as part of its day-to-day operations. An invading army is definitionally initiating forcen . A drug lord is initiating force regularly to maintain his turf. The duke will rough up peasants who don't pay.

2) Even if the antagonist isn't initiating force, you can easily provoke them into initiating force. Even if you don't accept the argument that mere existence of the city guard/police/army/dogcatchers/taxman is initiating force, provoking them into attacking you is eminently doable.

3) Even failing the previous two, you can use the Bob trick. You bring in your pal Bob, have him start the fight, and get involved once the enemy counter-attacks.

It does work in traditional means, but I wonder about the problems that ultra-tech and magic dystopias might create.

Let's say for example a mage creates a magic wall surrounding the town well, and you lack the weaponry to destroy the wall directly, but know that if you kill that mage the magic wall will vanish.

The mage claims he purchased the well (perhaps he did) and isn't 'attacking' you in a traditional sense, just denying you access to an important resource you require to thrive. But if you don't kill him, it seems like you are eventually going to die of thirst unless some lucky deux ex machina comes along to help.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Plane

It does work in traditional means, but I wonder about the problems that ultra-tech and magic dystopias might create.

Let's say for example a mage creates a magic wall surrounding the town well, and you lack the weaponry to destroy the wall directly, but know that if you kill that mage the magic wall will vanish.

The mage claims he purchased the well (perhaps he did) and isn't 'attacking' you in a traditional sense, just denying you access to an important resource you require to thrive. But if you don't kill him, it seems like you are eventually going to die of thirst unless some lucky deux ex machina comes along to help.

Just because someone is slowly but inevitably killing you doesn't mean they aren't attacking you.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Just because someone is slowly but inevitably killing you doesn't mean they aren't attacking you.

True, but in this case he is not doing either. There are other sources of water besides the mage’s well. They may be inconvenient, but refusing access to one’s resources is certainly not an attack.