Questions about mean, antisocial Disadvantages

[RGTraynor]

Beyond the other comments, look: control rolls at the base cost for these Disadvantages are something the characters can make around three quarters of the time. I'd say that readily encompasses someone with Bloodlust wrapping their head around the premise that it's a bad idea to shiv someone in the throat in a casual bar fistfight, or someone with Sadism declining to strangle their little son's bunny in front of his face.

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

Beyond the other comments, look: control rolls at the base cost for these Disadvantages are something the characters can make around three quarters of the time. I'd say that readily encompasses someone with Bloodlust wrapping their head around the premise that it's a bad idea to shiv someone in the throat in a casual bar fistfight, or someone with Sadism declining to strangle their little son's bunny in front of his face.

Spot on. This is exactly it. It is NOT that someone with Bloodlust would decline to murder someone in a bar fight, but rather that the person will come to his senses that this would be bad for business. In game terms, it means that the person was "successful at the resistance roll". In narrative terms "I dont kill every drunkard that crosses my way".

But there are SEVERAL stupid street brawls that DO end with a knife in the belly or a bullet in the head. So yes, if your character with Bloodlust gets in a bar fight, you DO have to roll self control and in case you fail you DO break up the guy's neck.

Most people irl that do have any one of those, will most likely have them at the highest self control lvl (only fails under 15+), which means it's very rare for them to snap - but they DO snap from time to time. This is realistic.

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...

[coronatiger]

Originally Posted by Solomon Draak

And a Callous and Sadistic Bully with Bloodlust and Berserk?

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Depends on the campaign... are they playing Puppy-Kickingly Evil Murder Hobos? Then it's probably fine... though Berserk should really be called "And You Will Die Soon" as it tends to lead to very short lifespans in the Player didn't build the PC just so.

With all these disadvantages, you can probably afford a few levels of Unkillable...

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by Solomon Draak

About single Disadvantages:

Sadist: does a sadist feel the compulsion to hurt everyone everytime, or only if presented a clear opportunity to do it without repercussions? And can he make exceptions for friends and loved ones?

Callous: can exceptions be made for friends and loved ones?
And, should Callous be required for characters with Bully or Sadism?


-

About interactions between Disadvantages:


Bloodlust + Bad Temper: if the characters fails the roll to control his Bad Temper and a brawl begins ( a light brawl, no weapons or homicidal intent ) does his killing instinct kicks in or not?

Bloodlust + Berserk: if an opponent is down, what urge is stronger - coup the grace or immediately attack a new foe?

Bloodlust + Sadism: the priority is to kill the enemy ASAP or to torture him?

Bully + Sadism: what is exactly the difference? What does a Bully that is different from what a Sadist does?

-

About GURPS - Zombie: ( pag 60 )

Could incontrollable disadvantages ( no self control roll ) be used by player characters? Or non-zombies in general?

Also:

What is the difference between incontrollable Bad Temper and incontrollable Bloodlust? They both just attack on sight.

My take:
Sadist: If sentient, then the sadist has to roll for self control when someone is in a vulnerable situation. Ideally, against anyone, with friends just getting a self inflicted roleplaying difficulty modifier that puts it way over 18 in normal circumstances. But theoretically, if in a really bad (mental) situation could be sadistic toward friends too.

If not sentient (aka animals and so forth,...yes it's an unfortunate term in GURPS, but it works) , the self control roll I would represent as a fancy of a predator to play with the prey. Not the same as bloodlust or bully, just prolonging death, doesn't HAVE to be bloody to be paw batted around by a giant tiger, BEFORE the kill, after all.

Callous: Simply does not respond to distress from species, inlcuding their own, that would make the norm of their species back down a bit.
A human who doesn't care if someone collapses, whimpering, crying, peeing themselves.
A dog wouldn't really have a bite shyness toward, doesn't care if the target screams and goes BAD DOG or AUS!

Combinations, I see them as separate rolls, but if they happen to both fail then:

Bad Temper + Bloodlust:
You just socked the guy and he's on the floor, but he's only got a split lip.
Why not break his nose with a kick, too, to really get the ketchup flowing? Roll to just let things be and walk away.

Berserk + Bloodlust: Hack, hack ,hacking away. Unless there appears a greater threat than the victim still having a few ounces of blood inside and the family can still identify the victim by visuals more easily than a DNA test.

Bloodlust + Sadism: Torture the victim in a bloody way. Shallow cuts, drizzling of peroxide on them, etc.

Bully + Sadism: Mr Teatime from Terry Pratchett.

As for the difference, well, consider two prison guards.
One passes you daily and makes quips at you and your poor life choices. He makes you walk faster or straighter (even if you're already marching properly) during transfers to somewhere.

The other twists daggers ever so slightly without perhaps even confronting you.
Adding a few teaspoons of water to your mashed potatoes so their texture is not as nice.
Your cells heating 'malfunctions'. You get told that you get some visitor time and then going back on that.

I see the overlap though, and it's probably even more subtle than that.

But yeah a bully doesn't have to be aggressive, and a sadist also doesn't have to be violent.

Many examples of that found online, on highly 'curated' venues with many a codes of conducts and clauses.
You don't usually have to search hard to find users there who use these constraints to bully people and be sadistic about it.

Imagine me telling you something inflammatory at the core, but dressed in layers of 'politeness', and if you show even the slightest bit of teeth I make a scene about you how I am only here to have a civil discussion and don't want to deal with your kind of hateful conduct and that I will report you for harassment if you talk back to THAT.

And then I egg you on.

I'd be a bully at the very least.

Edit:
I would not let players be too evil, especially if their unsavoriness has no means of getting curbed.
So, no uncontrollable evil disads on players.

But you COULD absolutely do that...but then you better have some REAL good people at the table...or this can go into "Today I discovered something about my coworker I would never have guessed and now I'm a bit scared." territory.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

Beyond the other comments, look: control rolls at the base cost for these Disadvantages are something the characters can make around three quarters of the time. I'd say that readily encompasses someone with Bloodlust wrapping their head around the premise that it's a bad idea to shiv someone in the throat in a casual bar fistfight, or someone with Sadism declining to strangle their little son's bunny in front of his face.

I mean, if you ignore the text of the Bloodlust Disadvantage, which specifically calls out bar fights (and situations like them) as a case where the character won't try to escalate to murder. Of course, in fiction you do have cases of characters who will escalate nearly any fight to murder, even casual ones. That's pretty extreme though, and might call for a Delusion of some sort ("Any instance of combat calls for an extreme response"). Fictional characters with such a mindset include Amos Burton from The Expanse and possibly Andrew "Ender" Wiggin from Ender's Game (who lacks Bloodlust, and is largely over that mindset as of Ender's Exile, and certainly over it as of Speaker for the Dead, but that doesn't change the fact that he beat two kids to death as a child).

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Callous: Simply does not respond to distress from species, inlcuding their own, that would make the norm of their species back down a bit.
A human who doesn't care if someone collapses, whimpering, crying, peeing themselves.
A dog wouldn't really have a bite shyness toward, doesn't care if the target screams and goes BAD DOG or AUS!

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.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by coronatiger

With all these disadvantages, you can probably afford a few levels of Unkillable...

Berserk -10, Bloodlust -10, Bully -10, Callous -5, Sadism -15... yeah,okay, you can afford level 1.

But here's the rub... no one will want to help this PC for very long. So the first fight they fall in will probably be their last as the rest of the party decides to finish them off. Unkillable 1 just means you don't till -10 HT.

Even if there is a reason to keep them alive, well... I'm sure the rest of the party will quickly grow tired of this PC's antics and constant problem causing. I'd expect a lot of OOC discussions.

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.

This is true.

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.

Yes, but see above "complex ethical systems". Sometimes "cause no pain, physical or emotional" will be a part of that system. It's really going to come down to whether they have a Code of Honor of any level.

[whswhs]

Berserk, Bloodlust, Bully, and Sadism all have self-control rolls. How much they will affect your behavior depends on what those rolls are. Bully (9) and Sadism (15) will produce a different profile than Bully (15) and Sadism (9).

However, you should note that you are not supposed to try to make self-control rolls too often. If you do, the GM has the right to deny your character any experience award for that session. The baseline is that you can attempt self-control when you have a good reason for the attempt—that failure will subject you to harm, or will interfere carrying out your mission, or will go against a different psychological disadvantage (for which the GM might have you make self-control rolls for BOTH traits and see which one fails worse!).

Callous is always in effect and does not allow self-control rolls. It gets negative reactions from various people, hinders a number of skills, but helps Interrogation and Intimidation. It makes you not care if you cause pain or unhappiness.

By the literal wording, Callous might be taken to make Sadism impossible, since the sadist DOES care: they want other people to suffer pain or unhappiness! But I think that "not caring" actually means "not being motivated to avoid." In that interpretation, the two traits actually work well together. The person will cause pain, and enjoy it, whenever they can hurt someone without having reason not to, or when they do have reason not to be fail in self-control; if they succeed in self-control, they simply will be indifferent to pain.

The Bull is a different sort: their goal is not to cause pain but to dominate, whether physically, intellectually, or socially. They will try to push others around whenever there's no reason not to, or whenever they fail in self-control. If they're also Callous, they won't care if they cause pain or unhappiness, even if they avoid bullying; if they're also a Sadist, they'll enjoy both dominating and causing pain. (Fritz Leiber portrays such a character, a faculty wife at a small university, in Conjure Wife.)

Bloodlust is different from all of these. It doesn't come up in social situations, or when someone is under your control (though it might cause you to kill them instead of taking them prisoner), or even in ordinary "social" fights such as a barroom brawl—only in a fight that involves deadly force, where you'll kill your foe if you possibly can, unless you have a strong reason to keep them alive (such as needing a prisoner to question), and make a self-control roll. Bloodlust actually hinders both Bully and Sadism, as a corpse can neither be tortured nor pushed around (though I suppose you might act like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the battlefield behind his chariot). Neither a bully nor a sadist will normally seek to kill their victims anyway, unless the victims use serious violence and they feel threatened.

Berserk is harder to trigger than Bloodlust: it's not enough for the foe to be attempting deadly force against you; they have to actually wound you significantly, or do the same to someone you care about. On the other hand, once it is triggered, you attack more recklessly, disregarding your own safety, and may attack your usual allies. If you defeat a foe, you may come out of Berserk, but if you have Bloodlust, I think you have to roll against that to avoid striking that final fatal blow—and if you don't come out, and you've started attacking your friends, you have to treat them as foes, which suggests that you have to try to kill them. On the other hand, you're not reflective enough to pause to dominate or torture them. I could imagine that failing self-control for Sadist would make you want to torture them so badly that you would have a chance to come out of Berserk, gaining the ability to restrain yourself while you inflict pain without massive killing blows. (I don't think this would work so well for Bully.)

Having all five would produce an ugly profile, but would also produce interesting conflicts. I think that Bloodlust would take precedence over Sadism, which would take precedence over Berserk, which would take precedence over Bully. All of them would produce behavior that LOOKED callous, but if you were also Callous you would still be indifferent to suffering when you weren't in a passion with any of the others.

[Sam Baughn]

I don't remember where I saw (or imagined) it, but I seem to remember a rule which said that if you have two disadvantages with self-control numbers and they each pushed you to take a different course of action, you should roll for both and act on whichever had the greatest margin of failure.

A few random thoughts on specific disadvantages, in no specific order:

With Bully and Sadism, I think one key difference is that a sadist doesn't just go after easy targets. The text for Bully says 'whenever you can get away with it' and the common use of the word generally refers to people who like to humiliate the weak and powerless. GURPS doesn't always use words (especially trait names) in exactly the way they are used in everyday English, but in this case it seems pretty close. Sadists, on the other hand, are tempted 'whenever you have an opportunity to indulge' which, to me, implies they don't just go after the helpless. I'm something of a sadist (although probably not to the extent that would qualify me for the disadvantage in GURPS, more of a quirk-level) and I've met a lot of people who are also sadists in the everyday sense of the word (and some who were bad enough they might have Sadism in GURPS). Although some of them were bullies, a lot of them (including me) seem to specifically enjoy cruelty (or at least causing discomfort) towards attractive, powerful people and be quite bored with targets who are too meek, pathetic, low-status, or otherwise 'easy'. From a certain perspective I think you could look at them as part of a spectrum of disadvantages which go something like Selfish (which in GURPS means something more like 'narcissist') - Bully - Sadism - Trickster.

Bloodlust is a weird disadvantage, because at first glance it seems 'realistic' but it doesn't match well to any particular psychological condition or personality type I'm familiar with. There's a certain 'type' who is very frightened by violence and unable to retaliate or escalate 'appropriately' under stress, so they go straight to lethal force because they can't recognize they are in a non-lethal fight (or are unwilling to be beaten). But that is not what GURPS calls 'Bloodlust' because it explicitly states you don't have to kill people in brawls. Likewise, it isn't the trained reflexes of a cop or soldier who always shoots to kill, because that's just how everyone trains with firearms and most of them are good at not killing people they shouldn't, certainly not killing prisoners (and when cops and soldiers kill prisoners, it's usually because they are very stressed and angry with the prisoners, not something that they do because they just want to kill). I guess there are people who are just obsessed with homicide, who might 'fit the bill'. Apart from serial killers (who probably don't qualify because they are usually only homicidal in very particular circumstances) you do sometimes hear about people who decided to become snipers or whatever because they wanted to be able to kill people. I've never (as far as I know, at least) met one though.

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.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

Bloodlust is a weird disadvantage, because at first glance it seems 'realistic' but it doesn't match well to any particular psychological condition or personality type I'm familiar with.

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.