Going Berserk on your friends?

[whswhs]

There is nothing in the definition of Berserk that says you won't attack your friends. In fact, it says explicitly that if you run out of foes, "you start to attack your friends," and it instructs you to "Treat any friend who attempts to restrain you as a foe!" No exception is made for those toward whom you have Sense of Duty. And I don't think one should be made; if people actually are your friends, it's likely that you will treat them as if you had some measure of Sense of Duty toward them, and particularly as much as would prevent you from attacking them, whether you've taken it as a disadvantage or not. The category of "friends" logically includes "people toward whom you have a Sense of Duty."

And I think that the likelihood that you may attack your friends when in battle mode is one of the biggest reasons that Berserk is actually a disadvantage. Without that element, it would be much less of one. Okay, it would cause you to charge into battle, but it's widely testified that PCs rarely die in combat and that many GMs will fudge dice rolls to prevent it; I don't think that's enough of a problem to make this a major disadvantage.

If you have that combination, I would not penalize you for bad roleplaying if your character goes berserk and attacks their companions; I would say that you didn't choose to do so, but had it forced on you by the dice rolls. And I think the aftermath, when you come back to yourself and discover that the people you would risk your life to help have been hurt by your rage, is an opportunity for some really interesting roleplaying.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by whswhs

There is nothing in the definition of Berserk that says you won't attack your friends.

I unfortunately don't have the books in front of me at this moment but if the post previously on berserk is from the book then only unbound would attack allies.

Is he inaccurately quoting the book?

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I unfortunately don't have the books in front of me at this moment but if the post previously on berserk is from the book then only unbound would attack allies.

Is he inaccurately quoting the book?

No. He even starts his post with "If I were rewriting it".

By RAW, you will attack friends after all the enemies are downed, unless you can make a self-control roll. It is a disadvantage, after all.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I unfortunately don't have the books in front of me at this moment but if the post previously on berserk is from the book then only unbound would attack allies.

Is he inaccurately quoting the book?

I assume that by "he" you mean RedMattis? As DangerousThing says, he isn't quoting the book, but offering a rewrite. What the book says (p. B124) is, in part,

When you down a foe, you may (if you wish) attempt another self-control roll to see if you snap out of the berserk state. If you fail (or do not roll), you remain berserk and attack the next foe. Treat any friend who attempts to restrain you as a foe! You get to roll again each time you down a foe, and you get one extra roll when no more foes remain. If you are still berserk, you start to attack your friends . . .

That seems quite explicit: There are two different situations in which you will attack a friend or friends.

I would not be favorable to granting exemptions to this, in general. It seems to me that the risk of harming friends is the single biggest drawback to Berserk as a state; without that it's nearly an advantage! At the very least, I would treat Berserk without that risk as being worth a base -5 rather than -10.

[Bruno]

If you refuse to attack your friends, the GM at best docks you points for bad roleplaying, and at worst you have an argument at the table about cheating. If you attack your friends, the GM docks you points for bad roleplaying, the normal penalty for violating a Sense of Duty.

Combining the two disadvantages is very classic "Tragic Hero" material, and like any other set of "conflicting" disadvantages, you don't get less problems for having both, you get more problems for having both.

I personally would, as GM,allow the player to trade "docked points for violating Sense of Duty while Berserk" for "suffering Chronic Depression for a while". This would be the same as when someone with Guilt Complex makes bad things happen through their own actions (see p137 in the basic set). The reason why I would offer this as an alternative is because this promotes roleplaying. Also, I took a lot of English credits so the Tragic Hero trope is appealing to me.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bruno

If you refuse to attack your friends, the GM at best docks you points for bad roleplaying, and at worst you have an argument at the table about cheating. If you attack your friends, the GM docks you points for bad roleplaying, the normal penalty for violating a Sense of Duty.

I'm not sure I would view it that way.

Suppose that you are in a fight, and your enemy knocks you back into one of your friends, who is hurt, or throws you down from a height onto a friend, who is hurt badly. Would that violate your Sense of Duty? I'd say no; it isn't an action you chose. But going berserk isn't an action you choose either. When you are wounded, you have to make that roll.

This is different from, for example, choosing to go off to battle and leave your loved ones unprotected ("I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I not honor more"), where following your Code of Honor is a voluntary choice.

Though ... thinking about it ... I could see a case that if you voluntarily go berserk when your friends or adventuring companions are in reach, you HAVE risked violating your Sense of Duty. But that wouldn't apply to involuntary berserk. (The fact that you the player chose to take the disadvantage doesn't signify. Your character is not you, and the choices you make in designing them are not their choices, but yours.)

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I would not be favorable to granting exemptions to this, in general. It seems to me that the risk of harming friends is the single biggest drawback to Berserk as a state; without that it's nearly an advantage! At the very least, I would treat Berserk without that risk as being worth a base -5 rather than -10.

I would have thought having to go into all out attack mode all the time would be a massive disadvantage. In fact I wondered how long term the character would survive with that requirement.

I would agree though having finally got back to my books that the rules support your view.

As for your cost suggestion, it's probably -10 without all the benefits it gives but because it gives so many benefits it's -5. From a flavor perspective though I don't think I see traditional conceptions of berserk involving attacking your friends. Maybe there needs to be a battle rage advantage if there isn't one already. I'm imagining the barbarian concept.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I would have thought having to go into all out attack mode all the time would be a massive disadvantage. In fact I wondered how long term the character would survive with that requirement.

You don't have to do that. It's activated only when you or someone you love is hurt. Of course you can voluntarily activate it by making a Will roll, but that trait by itself would be a perk, amounting to a variant Controllable Disadvantage.

Going berserk all the time would be represented as both Berserk and Bad Temper, which is a base -20 points.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

I would have thought having to go into all out attack mode all the time would be a massive disadvantage. In fact I wondered how long term the character would survive with that requirement.

Berserk is more survivable if you're very strong and wear lots of armour. You eliminate foes faster, because of high damage, get injured less because of all the armour, and the encumbrance means your friends have a chance to out-run you.

However, that's "more survivable" not "definitely survivable." Berserk will likely get you killed or crippled eventually. The legendary and fictional portrayals of berserkers tend to agree on that. GURPS has disadvantages like Terminally Ill and Cursed; it does not seem to be the intention that all disadvantages are compatible with a long and successful career.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

What kind of bonus to a self-control roll to not attack a friend would a Berserker get for having a Sense of Duty to that person?

Sense of Duty provides neither a bonus nor a penalty to this check.

Originally Posted by JulianLW

It's easy for me to imagine a dog that would easily go Berserk on someone who attacked his owner (i.e. a low self-control number) - and would be uncontrollable by that owner - but who would never attack the owner.

That would be better represented by Bad Temper than Berserk.

Originally Posted by JulianLW

As an additional question: what kind of limitation on the disadvantage do you think it would it be to never harm someone unintentionally? One person? A group of people?

I wouldn't permit such a limitation in my games. This reads as an attempt to game the disadvantage into being a beneficial trait. If I was convinced to do so against my better judgement, it would be Mitigator ("Sense of Duty"; Vulnerable Mitigator), -60%