Let's Talk CvK

[Koshka]

Yes, I know we've had other threads on this topic. One of my players gave me a really bizarre interpretation, and I'm wondering if anyone else has run across this one.

I'm running a Golden Age Champions game. The player in question was talking with another player outside the game, and her reaction was "let's check this interpretation with the GM". This should be an accurate representation, even though I got most of it from the other player, because Player In Question was sitting right there -- and while he's getting a few points for his speech impediment, there's nothing wrong with his ears.

1) 20 points CvK means the character must actively oppose war by all means possible.

2) 20 points CvK means if the character's country goes to war, the character will not serve in the armed forces under any circumstances -- including noncombat roles.

3) 20 points CvK means if the character's country goes to war, the character will not take any job that will support the war in any way. It wasn't clear if this included appearing at the USO or not, but it definitely included working in a war industry in your secret ID, helping at War Bond rallies, or signing on with the government as Official US Heroes Protecting The Homefront.

Now, this same Player In Question is the one who thinks 20 points CvK means you can kill all the bad guys you like :rolleyes: . It's nice that he's willing to accept some limitation for his points, but this is ridiculous!

Needless to say, the GM will not be using his custom interpretation of CvK. Is it just me, or has anyone else run across Bizarro-world interpretations?

And Darren, is there room in the Golden Age Champions manuscript outline for a paragraph or two on CvK and war?

[Trebuchet]

Yeah, that's pretty bizarre. But a Total CvK means exactly that: The character WILL NOT KILL, and would also generally oppose killing by teammates. I can't begin to see where he gets the idea he can kill all the enemies he wants with a CvK; just not friends. How is that different from a gang banger?

Mahatma Ghandi carried a stretcher on the battlefield during the First World War despite being opposed to war.

[Kristopher]

If the player with the bizarre interpretation kept insisting on playing it that way, I'd politely ask for his character sheet, scratch out CvK, and ink in "Completely Opposed to War", maybe with a lower frequency.

[Karma]

If the player with the bizarre interpretation kept insisting on playing it that way, I'd politely ask for his character sheet, scratch out CvK, and ink in "Completely Opposed to War", maybe with a lower frequency.
or "Code Vs. Other People Killing" or "Opposed to people pointing out his own hypocracy" but that migh be a bit harsh. Of course since none of these would be worth 20 pts he'd have to spend his XP paying off the difference

Sounds like his CvK isn't one at all, let alone a 20 pt one. Even someone with a 5 pt CvK will only kill when he has to, and certainly won't stop others (although he might argue against it). Like charity, CvK begins at home. If he's killing left, right and center how can he expect to argue (even by inaction) others should not to do the same? "You only kill Bad Guys? What are our enemies then? Doesn't every red blooded patriot have the same right, nay duty, to kill as many of *these* bad guys as he can in protection of his country/freedom/our way of life?

[BNakagawa]

A friend of mine who can reasonably be described as actually having a 20 pt CVK once described first person shooters as 'murder simulators'.

I shot back that they were hardly murder simulators, because only very rarely was anyone found guilty of murdering people who were armed to the teeth and hellbent on killing them, too.

It was more reasonably described as a combat simulator, in that you are in an environment full of people, similarly armed and hostile to your continued existence. Given those circumstances, what actions are called for?

War is a collective endeavor. Murder is an individual action. One can be entirely against murder and still support war. Especially when war is imposed upon one's country by an invader. Unless, of course, one feels that their individual preferences outweigh the continued existence of their nation, religion or race.

It is very important to note that outside of modern western culture, this is a mindset that can only be described as falling somewhere between unusual and aberrant.

$0.02

[Koshka]

I can't begin to see where he gets the idea he can kill all the enemies he wants with a CvK; just not friends. How is that different from a gang banger?

I wasn't in the game where he got his introduction to Champions, but I've heard it described as "Cthulhupunk: The Masquerade" run with the 4th edition Dark Champions book. Apparently, literally every NPC the players encountered was 1) built on at least as many points as them and 2) out to kill them. I suspect he's thinking of CvK as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" -- and in the courts, self defense isn't murder.


Mahatma Ghandi carried a stretcher on the battlefield during the First World War despite being opposed to war.

If I have trouble with him (and I don't expect to* ), I've also seen a reference to a commando unit in WWII where all the stretcher bearers were pacifists. Between them and Gandhi, I should be set.

_____
*While we didn't know each other then, it seems we were in the same high school. The last time he got his old yearbooks out, he discovered I was on the honor roll. It may be a really low-level Reputation bonus, but I'm certainly going to use it ;) .

[Trebuchet]

I wasn't in the game where he got his introduction to Champions, but I've heard it described as "Cthulhupunk: The Masquerade" run with the 4th edition Dark Champions book. Apparently, literally every NPC the players encountered was 1) built on at least as many points as them and 2) out to kill them. I suspect he's thinking of CvK as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" -- and in the courts, self defense isn't murder. Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off. :)

[Dr. Anomaly]

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off. :)
You and me both. :) I'd like to think it'd be a last resort, but I also have no qualms about it being a "resort" if the situation called for it. I've only had to use a firearm to halt a potentially nasty situation once, and I didn't aim it at the other people (who were also armed, by the way) -- instead of answering with words, I simply cocked my rifle. They decided they had better things to do and got off my posted "No Trespassers" land.

[freakboy6117]

the religious versions of the CVK are quiet good examples


though shall not murder so self defense killing in time of war or
thou shall not kill ie the qaukers no self defense and won't fight for there country if it means killing but will serve as medical personel

thou shall not kill at all some buddhists who won't even harm insects path of non violence

[Lupus]

Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off. :)
Sounds about right. I'm somewhat lenient in the CvK stakes, in my game - I'd call you 10 points. Actually, I'd call most normal people 10 points at most. 15 and 20 point versions are normally, in my mind, restricted to total pacifists, or superheroes. After all, most people don't have the luxury of trying other options before resorting to potentially-lethal force.

Different (more stringent/demanding) rules for those with the power to do HAVE choices. :)

[Just A Guy Name]

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK.I remember this used to be called a zero point disadvantage (for typical campaigns). "Reluctant to kill", IIRC.

[Trebuchet]

I remember this used to be called a zero point disadvantage (for typical campaigns). "Reluctant to kill", IIRC.Yeah, Reluctance to Kill was from an old Adventurer's Club article. I always liked the idea.

[OddHat]

Your friend is full of it. "Pacifist" or "Anti-War" are valid limits, but they are not "Code Versus Killing."

Large numbers of field medics and support personnel in WWII were religiously opposed to killing.

[Metaphysician]

Yep, this isn't CvK. Its some other disadvantage, or maybe just bad role-playing.

As for the more general question, it really depends on how the CvK is conceived. I tend to figure that most CvKs in anything less than a pure silver age game are essentially "codes vs vigilanteism." IOW, the represent a strong resistance to the idea of taking life and death into one's own hands, unlawfully, unjustly, and unnecessarily. Thus, the character refuses to take life because the power to do so is not his, and the power to avoid doing so *is*. However, he isn't necessarily opposed to those less capable using deadly force where appropriate ( ordinary police ). Likewise, it doesn't necessarily force opposition to suitably justified capital punishment or warfare, because in those cases, a legitimate authority is making the decision.

[zornwil]

Would just add that if the PC is totally opposed to killing AND totally opposed to war such that they would (for example) not aid the US government at all because it's conducting the war or the equivalent of such in Iraq, then, to me, that'd be worth two disads, the CvK one and another (infrequent, unless gov't interaction is so common) for the total opposition to war.

[Tech]

Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.
I have a female character who's got innate wind powers. Genocide showed up (forgot why) but Genocide was ready for the fellow teammate with powered armor. They used a small robot which started to kill him; this was all-in-all a very energy-laden and emotional episode, particularly because of the next scene:

My character flies up to the commander and tells him to call off the attack and she'll willingly go with him, no questions. Now, I actually struggled with her saying that because I knew the consequences but it was in character. It worked at any rate and Genocide started to leave, my character with. I had her say a brief 'Goodbye' to her teammates realizing she was walking towards her death. This left the group in tortured confusion for a few moments. Fortunately, that got my armored teammate to seriously push his attack & vaporize the robot hurting him. They rescued her before she got too far (after all, she gave her word, not them) and managed to beat Genocide. Afterwards, the PC's and characters were emotionally drained but thoroughly enjoyed the episode.

The point is that instead of unleashing a barage of attacks to try to kill to protect her teammates, my character willingly offered her life. That's what a total Code vs Killing is about.

[Dust Raven]

There's definately a difference between CVK and what you have described.

When I allow it at all, I require CVK to be Common, Total. Any less than that and you're just playing an average character. In my opinion, the average person would have to make an EGO roll to kill someone unless in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, most would end up appalled at their actions. A person who can kill without a twinge is mentally disturbed.

(Quick note: I'm not referring to soldering or killing on combat. The military works hard at dehumanizing the "enemy". Since this aspect of the topic is best left for the NGD board, I'll get back to CVK.)

When a character has CVK, they just don't want to kill for any reason. Such characters who routinely find themselves in combat should be afraid of killing. I've seen enough starting characters, usually with new players, take a 12d6 EB to a standard VIPER agent and nearly kill him. A character with a CVK should never have used that much force. A character with CVK should almost always start out with very week attacks, 1/2 damage at most, until they can guage what their opponent can withstand. A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles, Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.

[assault]

A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles, Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.

So, no CVK for Batman, then?

This seems a little funny, since he pretty much was the first character to be given one.

(I still like the original, non-CVK version, though. And killer Robin, too.)

[Dust Raven]

So, no CVK for Batman, then?

This seems a little funny, since he pretty much was the first character to be given one.

(I still like the original, non-CVK version, though. And killer Robin, too.)
Batman is what you get when you combine a CVK with Vengeful.

Personally, I like to think of Batman as having Agressive in Combat, rather than the other two. He still has reluctance to kill, at no point value like anyone, and takes it seriously, which is more of a quirk than an actual Disad.

[zornwil]

There's definately a difference between CVK and what you have described.

When I allow it at all, I require CVK to be Common, Total. Any less than that and you're just playing an average character. In my opinion, the average person would have to make an EGO roll to kill someone unless in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, most would end up appalled at their actions. A person who can kill without a twinge is mentally disturbed.

(Quick note: I'm not referring to soldering or killing on combat. The military works hard at dehumanizing the "enemy". Since this aspect of the topic is best left for the NGD board, I'll get back to CVK.)

When a character has CVK, they just don't want to kill for any reason. Such characters who routinely find themselves in combat should be afraid of killing. I've seen enough starting characters, usually with new players, take a 12d6 EB to a standard VIPER agent and nearly kill him. A character with a CVK should never have used that much force. A character with CVK should almost always start out with very week attacks, 1/2 damage at most, until they can guage what their opponent can withstand. A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles, Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.
Not to argue the point, but I wouldn't call costumed vigilantes at all in the realm of normal people. I realize they're not soldiers, but their experiences, I think, would tend to make them less reluctant to use deadly force as well as more likely to face the consequences of death. Though I'm not suggesting they should be psychopaths or casual killers - not normally, anyway, there's room for Rorshacks and Punishers, but they'd still be the unusual case. But I think even something like the Incredibles, which is hardly dark, where Mr. Incredible throws the monorail vehicle onto two soldiers, which is certainly endangering life and limb, wherein we suspect the guards survived but there's still a willingness to use deadly force against deadly foes, is not atypical of the super genre, and I'm not referring just to Iron Age guts galore comics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Personally, I like to think of Batman as having Agressive in Combat, rather than the other two. He still has reluctance to kill, at no point value like anyone, and takes it seriously, which is more of a quirk than an actual Disad.

Given how serious he is about not killing (for himself and others), he should have the disad. He should also have a "Hatred of criminals" disadvantage. Combined, the two mean he won't strike to kill, but he will hit hard.

ASIDE: Does anyone else look sideways at a character with CvK who routinely strikes at full power against unknown opponents (ie anyone in a super-suit is assumed invunerable)?

[CBikle]

This subject will be covered in detail in The Ultimate Code Vs. Killing sourcebook out in early '06.

[Trebuchet]

Not to argue the point, but I wouldn't call costumed vigilantes at all in the realm of normal people. I realize they're not soldiers, but their experiences, I think, would tend to make them less reluctant to use deadly force as well as more likely to face the consequences of death. Though I'm not suggesting they should be psychopaths or casual killers - not normally, anyway, there's room for Rorshacks and Punishers, but they'd still be the unusual case. But I think even something like the Incredibles, which is hardly dark, where Mr. Incredible throws the monorail vehicle onto two soldiers, which is certainly endangering life and limb, wherein we suspect the guards survived but there's still a willingness to use deadly force against deadly foes, is not atypical of the super genre, and I'm not referring just to Iron Age guts galore comics.Good point. Of course, it's reasonable to assume that since deadly force had already been used against Mr. Incredible, he then felt himself free to "take off the kid gloves." Just because you're unwilling to instigate deadly force doesn't mean you won't do it under certain circumstances (Witness the JL episode "The Savage Time" where Superman, one of the icons of "won't kill" philosophy, clearly killed numerous Nazi troops.) in response to first use by the bad guys. He was still unwilling to kill Mirage after he was first captured because she hadn't directly threatened him.

I'd just say that Mr. Incredible had a 5 or 10 point CvK, and hence was able to make his EGO roll under extraordinary circumstances.

[Kristopher]

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."

[Trebuchet]

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."I think a Total CvK would preclude even that response. YMMV.

I think one thing that has become quite clear in this thread is that it is critical for players and GMs to discuss in advance what CvK means in the context of their particular campaign. Hashing this out in the middle of a game session as Squarejawed Hero is about to throw Nasty Villain to his death from a bridge abutment is Not A Good Idea.

[Trebuchet]

I have a female character who's got innate wind powers. Genocide showed up (forgot why) but Genocide was ready for the fellow teammate with powered armor. They used a small robot which started to kill him; this was all-in-all a very energy-laden and emotional episode, particularly because of the next scene:

My character flies up to the commander and tells him to call off the attack and she'll willingly go with him, no questions. Now, I actually struggled with her saying that because I knew the consequences but it was in character. It worked at any rate and Genocide started to leave, my character with. I had her say a brief 'Goodbye' to her teammates realizing she was walking towards her death. This left the group in tortured confusion for a few moments. Fortunately, that got my armored teammate to seriously push his attack & vaporize the robot hurting him. They rescued her before she got too far (after all, she gave her word, not them) and managed to beat Genocide. Afterwards, the PC's and characters were emotionally drained but thoroughly enjoyed the episode.

The point is that instead of unleashing a barage of attacks to try to kill to protect her teammates, my character willingly offered her life. That's what a total Code vs Killing is about.That's also what being a hero is all about. Kudos for some good role playing. :thumbup:

My character Zl'f would (and has) risk her life to save a comrade's. I hope that, in a similar circumstance, she'd (well, I'd) be brave enough to do the same thing as your character did.

[Bengal]

War is a collective endeavor. Murder is an individual action. One can be entirely against murder and still support war. Especially when war is imposed upon one's country by an invader. Unless, of course, one feels that their individual preferences outweigh the continued existence of their nation, religion or race.




Word up. A CvK should really be called a Code versus Murder. War is an endeavor where politicians point soldiers at other soldiers. There's no murdering, it's killing that happens. And even for those soldiers who actually do the killing, their primary objective is to end wars, not continue to fight them. For instance, this is why some people argue that our current war in Iraq is a failure- we can't seem to stop the killing from continuing. They do not make a concious decision to kill anyone, they only follow orders (or fail to).

Captain America is the ultimate soldier. But he still doesn't 'murder' people. When he does kill people, as he's started to again in recent years, it's in the context of war, not murder. I mean, you're never gonna see him kill the Rhino, even if Rhino is threatening to kill other people. But he would kill a dictator who had his finger on The Button, if there was no other way to stop him. And even then, Cap would consider that a personal failure.

So, IMO Cap has a CvK (code versus murder) at the 15 or 20 point level.

[Battlestaff]

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."
Some of this is also going to depend on the reputation of the villain the hero is fighting. If my character was going up against GRAB, he's most likely going to use non-lethal force to start, since he knows they also have CvK's.

On the other hand, if my character were going up agianst Dr. Destroyer or Eurostar, he would most likely start with the big guns, since (a) he knows they are a powerful lot, and (b) he knows they will most likely be trying to kill him.

[Hugh Neilson]

On the other hand, if my character were going up agianst Dr. Destroyer or Eurostar, he would most likely start with the big guns, since (a) he knows they are a powerful lot, and (b) he knows they will most likely be trying to kill him.

Too bad that's actually a group of schoolchildren that Menton has Illusioned you into perceiving as Eurostar, huh?

Seriously, in general I agree. But a Code vs Killing means that the character values life - even Dr. D or Eurostar's life - highly enough that he would rather risk his own death than cause someone else's death. Would Superman tear Dr. Destroyer's head off in a surprise attack because "Hey,. I need to take him down fast - he could actually hurt me"?

[Kristopher]

Too bad that's actually a group of schoolchildren that Menton has Illusioned you into perceiving as Eurostar, huh?

Seriously, in general I agree. But a Code vs Killing means that the character values life - even Dr. D or Eurostar's life - highly enough that he would rather risk his own death than cause someone else's death. Would Superman tear Dr. Destroyer's head off in a surprise attack because "Hey,. I need to take him down fast - he could actually hurt me"?

No.

More's the pity.

[Hugh Neilson]

No.

More's the pity.

Which means he is disadvantaged as compared to someone who would approach the issue in what most would perceive a more rational manner - Dr. D is extremely powerful, and a threat to life. If I didn't have a 20 pt C vs K, I'd take him down, as fast as possible with as much force as I had available.

But Supes won't, mainly due to his 20 point C vs K.

[pinecone]

It does sound like some of the problem is communication...player A might have a CvK based on being unwilling to take responsability for killing...ie no problem with capital punishment, but won't kill except in self defense maybe....a side note even a Very devoted buddist who might be unwilling to kill even in self defense might very well feel obligated to defend the life of some one else.....Helps explain why monks were "OK" with learning millitary arts.....the rest sounds like changing the CvK to "Bizare personal code" and maybe change the points......

[Karma]

Word up. A CvK should really be called a Code versus Murder. War is an endeavor where politicians point soldiers at other soldiers. There's no murdering, it's killing that happens.
No a total CvK is about all killing (in war or otherwise). The moment you put an 'except in this situation' in it you loose at least 5 pts off the disadvantage IMO (there's a reason that it's 20 pts worth, it's a heavy responsability). A Total CvK character should come out publically against war, and argue against it on the grounds of loss of life. Even when it happens (and it will unless he's poweful/popular enough to stop it) he should not be involved in the 'killing' part, or, for that matter, the production of weaponry. This does not stop him from taking part in the war in a medical or support capacity, if doing so is an attempt to lower the death toll (a flying super going to the war zone as a 'medivac' counts, as a gunship doesn't) and even then he should be doing his best to find a way to stop the killing.

They do not make a concious decision to kill anyone, they only follow orders (or fail to).
Two Words 'Nuremburg Defence'. Any action taken by a soldier is treated as their own decision, even if the order to do so comes from above. If the soldier is ordered to do something that goes against his conscience he is expected to refuse. When a soldier kills another under orders it is his own responsability, so one hopes that it is justified (which in war, in self defence, against other armed combatants, it is.) If, however, it is not he is just as guilty as the one giving the orders (under international war crimes law anyway).


Captain America is the ultimate soldier. But he still doesn't 'murder' people. When he does kill people, as he's started to again in recent years, it's in the context of war, not murder. I mean, you're never gonna see him kill the Rhino, even if Rhino is threatening to kill other people. But he would kill a dictator who had his finger on The Button, if there was no other way to stop him. And even then, Cap would consider that a personal failure.

So, IMO Cap has a CvK (code versus murder) at the 15 or 20 point level.

I'd give him 10 points if that, or more likely your 'Code Vs. Murder' varient (which is a lower pt value for being less common). He supports war and he can kill in certain circumstances without any qualms (much like many action heroes who mow through nameless mooks without a second thought).

[Dust Raven]

I think a Total CvK would preclude even that response. YMMV.

I think one thing that has become quite clear in this thread is that it is critical for players and GMs to discuss in advance what CvK means in the context of their particular campaign. Hashing this out in the middle of a game session as Squarejawed Hero is about to throw Nasty Villain to his death from a bridge abutment is Not A Good Idea.Couldn't agree with you more in this respect.

One thing I've learned from keep up on this thread is that we all have our own idea of what CVK means and how it is applied, and even how much it's worth in varying situations.

One of the things I'm currently working on for my campaign is a breakdown of the level of expected violence from the player characters and their advisaries. Since I run different "levels" of campaigns (one where the PCs are really nothing more that kind hearted vigilante killers, one where the PCs are larger than life goody-two-shoes superheroes, and sever somewhere in between), this should help my players know what I expect from their characters (with and without a CVK) during combat.

[Metaphysician]

Some of this is also going to depend on the reputation of the villain the hero is fighting. If my character was going up against GRAB, he's most likely going to use non-lethal force to start, since he knows they also have CvK's.

On the other hand, if my character were going up agianst Dr. Destroyer or Eurostar, he would most likely start with the big guns, since (a) he knows they are a powerful lot, and (b) he knows they will most likely be trying to kill him.

There's also a couple of extra factors too. One of them is the fact that if either Dr D or Eurostar get to act, innocents are probably going to die ( especially Eurostar ). Also, the tougher an opponent is known to be, the less you need to restrict your firepower. Even a Tot CvK should be free to let loose full force against Dr Destroyer.

[Bengal]

I'd give him 10 points if that, or more likely your 'Code Vs. Murder' varient (which is a lower pt value for being less common). He supports war and he can kill in certain circumstances without any qualms (much like many action heroes who mow through nameless mooks without a second thought).

Actually, Cap always does a ton of hand-wringing in these situations. He claims to remember everyone he's killed. He considers taking a life in any respect a personal failure. But the rest of what you say makes sense. So, wouldn't he get a 15 for it? I would give him a 15. There's way too many times Cap has a legal right to kill, and the moral imperative to do so, but does not. That's partially because of his profession (soldier) and partially because of the tone of his comic, but those things should come into play when deciding upon a point total for a disad.

[Powerhouse]

I find it interesting after so much time where CvK has been enshrined in Champions that its meaning is so heavily debated. I guess it shows the great diversity of the players. Cool.

My take is that a CvK is against killing, rather than murder. Whether in war or in a vigilante action, one with a Total compunction can not and will not *kill* whether in justice, defense, or war. To do so otherwise I think undercuts the "total" part of the code.

You average person probably doesn't have a code vs killing but the zero point reluctance to kill. We don't want to do so and we don't like it. Normal people won't shank someone for 20 dollars nor blow away a drug dealer Punisher style but they WILL kill in self-defense and they would most likely kill in war.

A code vs killing is more either for pacificists or comic book superheroes who follow the comic book code. They either won't kill or if pushed under very extreme conditions (ie beyond just regular combat which for supers isn't an extreme condition) will either fail to kill (didn't make the ego roll) or angst over it afterwards.

As an example, suppose someone has a Total CvK and is in a situation where they have to kill or not survive. They won't kill because they will freeze and their mind will be in a tizzy over the whole thing. It's why it's a Total psych limit. If you have moderate or strong you can make an ego roll but otherwise you're struggling with the decision and better hope that your GM lets you buy off that limit now and bank the points later.

IMHO, that's why CvK: Total should normally be restricted. Even Captain America and Superman I don't think have these limits because both have killed in the past (Cap on the Ultimatum agent while Superman killed the three Kryptonians). With a CvK: Total, they couldn't perform those actions since it's psychologically impossible.

Indeed, one of the few characters with a CvK: Total is Batman but that's because of the severe trauma he underwent.

One of my characters, Lady Silver, is a poster child for CvK who believes that redemption is possible for almost anyone. Yet...

*
D
E
M
O
N

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
*

I have a scene in my head where the Silve Knights finally, after years of struggle, find the head DEMON in the hospital. She sends the team out of the room who assume that she's just trying use some spellcraft to keep him quiet so they can turn him over to the authorities.

Instead, the door closes and a minute later, alarms start and a EKG machine signals that the heart is stopped. Trying to force the door, the Silver Knights find it warded. Five minutes later, the alarms stop, the door opens, and a very distraught Lady Silver emerges. Tears in her voice, she says simply, "Let's go home."

Later at their base, she breaks down and cries. By disconnecting the life support, and making sure that his spirit didn't posses anyone, she commmited murder. It's everything she is against and she's shredded her entire belief system but she felt she had no choice: his evil, his power, and the man's connection with the Edomites made him too dangerous to let live. As one of the few mystical guardians on Earth, she made her choice and it will haunt her for the rest of her life.

What does all the melodrama mean? Someone who has a CvK: Strong but not Total. Someone with a Total CvK couldn't have even done that. Her psych limit would have prevented her. Instead, she was able (after a heavily penalized Ego roll) to do what I think most of us would have no problems doing and now she has to deal with the psychological trauma that follows.

[Powerhouse]

"Even a Tot CvK should be free to let loose full force against Dr Destroyer."

Of course, depending on the power level of the campaign, most supers need to go full force to even scratch the Doc's paint and aren't likely to kill him at all.

[zornwil]

I think a Total CvK would preclude even that response. YMMV.

I think one thing that has become quite clear in this thread is that it is critical for players and GMs to discuss in advance what CvK means in the context of their particular campaign. Hashing this out in the middle of a game session as Squarejawed Hero is about to throw Nasty Villain to his death from a bridge abutment is Not A Good Idea.
That's the fundamental point and well-said. There's nothing wrong, really, with any one version of CvK or levels, but it's "wrong" if the player and GM run afoul of eachother - then no one has fun.

[Trebuchet]

I have a scene in my head where the Silve Knights finally, after years of struggle, find the head DEMON in the hospital. She sends the team out of the room who assume that she's just trying use some spellcraft to keep him quiet so they can turn him over to the authorities.

Instead, the door closes and a minute later, alarms start and a EKG machine signals that the heart is stopped. Trying to force the door, the Silver Knights find it warded. Five minutes later, the alarms stop, the door opens, and a very distraught Lady Silver emerges. Tears in her voice, she says simply, "Let's go home."

Later at their base, she breaks down and cries. By disconnecting the life support, and making sure that his spirit didn't posses anyone, she commmited murder. It's everything she is against and she's shredded her entire belief system but she felt she had no choice: his evil, his power, and the man's connection with the Edomites made him too dangerous to let live. As one of the few mystical guardians on Earth, she made her choice and it will haunt her for the rest of her life.

What does all the melodrama mean? Someone who has a CvK: Strong but not Total. Someone with a Total CvK couldn't have even done that. Her psych limit would have prevented her. Instead, she was able (after a heavily penalized Ego roll) to do what I think most of us would have no problems doing and now she has to deal with the psychological trauma that follows.Wow, that's certainly powerful food for thought. I fully agree that a character with Total CvK could not do this. I frankly doubt anyone with a Strong or Moderate could. This action wasn't taken in the heat of battle where there was no other way to stop the baddie but shooting. This was quite literally cold blooded murder.

Were a hero with a Strong or probably even Moderate CvK to do this, I would expect her to resign from the hero team, turn herself in to the authorities immediately afterward, and accept the full legal consequences of her actions.

[Rapier]

I've got 4 levels of CvK in my game (killing is an uncommon circumstance (5pt base) in my current campaign, in past campaigns its been common for the genre).

Casual Killer (0 Pts) - "I've killed a man for lookin at me funny."

Reluctance to Kill (5 pts) - This is your usual Clint Eastwood character. "I had to do it, he needed killin."

Prefers Not to Kill/Dislikes Killing (10 pts) - Requires an EGO roll to pull that trigger, major counselling afterwards, would only kill to protect family members etc.

Will Not Kill (15 pts) - Will not kill under any circumstances.

A CvK is a personal disad. It does not extend beyond the character. There are other disads that extend beyond the character (Protects Innocents, Pacificst, AntiWar Activist etc). The CvK ph stick is "How does my character feel about killing."

[Powerhouse]

"Wow, that's certainly powerful food for thought. I fully agree that a character with Total CvK could not do this. I frankly doubt anyone with a Strong or Moderate could. This action wasn't taken in the heat of battle where there was no other way to stop the baddie but shooting. This was quite literally cold blooded murder."

The villain in question is someone who contacted the Edomites who want nothing less than to annihilate all life or twist it into a hideous mockery. They are even worse than demons and devils according to the mystic world and may be, even moreso than Mechanon, Doctor Destroyer, or Tyrannon the single most dangerous threat to existence.

This villain has committed unspeakable evils and damned countless souls in this quest. It's highly improbable (though not impossible, indeed Lady Silver would never say that anyone is beyond redemption) that he can ever be redeemed but will instead continue the madness.

The scope of his plans, the evil of his soul (which was sold to the Edomites), resources (countless followers and money) and his power level (120-150 pts Cosmic VPP albeit with some limitations) made imprisoning him virtually impossible and too dangerous to all of existence. Also, even given her ties with the authorities, trying someone for trying to annihilate the world through summoning demons... I just can't see that going to court.

I would argue with the cold blooded murder part though it's kinda hard to be honest. Was it in the heat of the moment? No. Self Defense? No since he's beaten at that point (it probably followed an intense astral plane battle). Instead, she does it to prevent what he may which is possible for the above reasons.

Therefore, the only defense she has is that she took upon herself the authority to remove this threat because the conventional authorities did not have the ability to deal with him or the knowledge to understand. Indeed, if she's the archmage at this point, then Lady Silver *is* the authority in some ways.. itself a scary prospect. If she believes that her power and office gives her the right to kill someone else, and ignore the conventional authorities, is she no better than those she has fought? Is she even worse because she knows betters and is supposed to be better?

"Were a hero with a Strong or probably even Moderate CvK to do this, I would expect her to resign from the hero team, turn herself in to the authorities immediately afterward, and accept the full legal consequences of her actions."

I'm not sure yet when this happens in her history but in the end she doesn't. It's something that she took upon herself as one of earth's mystical protectors with all the guilt and second guessing. It's intended to be tragic that this person would compromise herself so terribly when she's in many ways as much of a hero as Superman or Captain America in her world. At that point, she bought down her Total CvK to Strong because she felt this was something that needed to be done to protect the world. The easy way out? Yeah and she knows it.

Whew, that went on for a while! Sorry.

*blush*

[Karma]

The CvK ph stick is "How does my character feel about killing."
Actually, as you descibe it it's 'How does my character feel about having to kill' whereas its usually described as 'How does my character feel about the subject of killing others, be it him/herself or by others'. A character with your disadvantage is able to do this: "I can't bring myself to kill you, even though I know that by allowing you to live you may one day return to make me regret it" (Turns to another character who doesn't have a CvK) "Kill him". As far as I'm concerned that's not a very heroic mindset

Whatever a heroes reason for his CvK he is doing his companions a disservace if he allows them to use lethal force without at least arguing against it if only because they will go down in his estimation for ignoring his moral beliefs.

That said I have a character who has 'Doesn't kill' out of pure survival instinct (the demon that shares her body is allowed to attempt to eat her soul if she ever kills anyone) but that's not really a Psych Limitation since she is not opposed to others killing (and would proabably play out the scene above)

Oh and in my games 'Casual killer' is a pointed psych limitation since it sets them apart from the vast majority of people (who don't see lethal force as an answer to everything) and would make people with it roll EGO not to use full lethal force against someone who was opposing them/annoying them/in their way on the sidewalk/looking at them funny. Said people would have an increasing level of Hunted: Law enforcement and decent supers everywhere.

[Trebuchet]

[SNIP]I'm not sure yet when this happens in her history but in the end she doesn't. It's something that she took upon herself as one of earth's mystical protectors with all the guilt and second guessing. It's intended to be tragic that this person would compromise herself so terribly when she's in many ways as much of a hero as Superman or Captain America in her world. At that point, she bought down her Total CvK to Strong because she felt this was something that needed to be done to protect the world. The easy way out? Yeah and she knows it.

Whew, that went on for a while! Sorry.

*blush*Wow, I thought this was a wholely hypothetical incident; I didn't realize it had actually happened in your campaign. :eek:

I would expect Lady Silver to undergo a considerable "crisis of faith" much like Superman did when he killed the three evil Kryptonians in the comics. I don't know that she'd actually leave Earth like he did, but she might well withdraw from public activities for a while. After all, she broke one of the central tenets of her heroism: She acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That should be a very traumatic thing to a heroic character sworn not to kill. She betrayed herself and her own ideals. I know my character would be badly shaken if she did something like that.

If nobody else could have stopped this villain and he was so destructive, perhaps the authorities would decline to prosecute even if they knew the truth. After all, if it would be hard for them to accept that the bad guy could summon demons and other nasties, it might be just as difficult for them to believe Lady Silver killed him with a spell. Or they might even tacitly approve of her action even if they believe her story. "Insufficient evidence." wink wink nudge nudge.

Good story, BTW. :)

[Powerhouse]

"Wow, I thought this was a wholely hypothetical incident; I didn't realize it had actually happened in your campaign. "

Actually it didn't. It's just one story from about a hundred associated with a super team I created and continue to modify over the years. I'd LOVE to self-publish but first gotta buy the rights to Champions.

;)

"I would expect Lady Silver to undergo a considerable "crisis of faith" much like Superman did when he killed the three evil Kryptonians in the comics. I don't know that she'd actually leave Earth like he did, but she might well withdraw from public activities for a while. After all, she broke one of the central tenets of her heroism: She acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That should be a very traumatic thing to a heroic character sworn not to kill. She betrayed herself and her own ideals. I know my character would be badly shaken if she did something like that."

She does, trust me. If you had to vote the one character most unlikely to commit such an act, it would have been her. It would have been like Superman or Captain America killing someone. I know she's left the team at least twice so this could be the second time. At the very least, she would have stepped down from leadership.

"If nobody else could have stopped this villain and he was so destructive, perhaps the authorities would decline to prosecute even if they knew the truth. After all, if it would be hard for them to accept that the bad guy could summon demons and other nasties, it might be just as difficult for them to believe Lady Silver killed him with a spell. Or they might even tacitly approve of her action even if they believe her story. "Insufficient evidence." wink wink nudge nudge. "

Proving the murder would have been really tough since this person legally doesn't even exist and he's very well-hidden. It would be as if the X-men killed Mr. Sinister; the authorities would be "who?" Some "top men" might be informed of this and the whole thing kept classified just given the danger and bizzareness of the whole thing. Legally she'd probably be in the clear but personally... that's another matter. It's the tarnishing of an angel.

*needs millions of dollars to buy champions and then publish comics. Don't worry... I just wanna borrow some stuff*

;)

[Trebuchet]

"Wow, I thought this was a wholely hypothetical incident; I didn't realize it had actually happened in your campaign. "

Actually it didn't. It's just one story from about a hundred associated with a super team I created and continue to modify over the years. I'd LOVE to self-publish but first gotta buy the rights to Champions.

;)

"I would expect Lady Silver to undergo a considerable "crisis of faith" much like Superman did when he killed the three evil Kryptonians in the comics. I don't know that she'd actually leave Earth like he did, but she might well withdraw from public activities for a while. After all, she broke one of the central tenets of her heroism: She acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That should be a very traumatic thing to a heroic character sworn not to kill. She betrayed herself and her own ideals. I know my character would be badly shaken if she did something like that."

She does, trust me. If you had to vote the one character most unlikely to commit such an act, it would have been her. It would have been like Superman or Captain America killing someone. I know she's left the team at least twice so this could be the second time. At the very least, she would have stepped down from leadership.

"If nobody else could have stopped this villain and he was so destructive, perhaps the authorities would decline to prosecute even if they knew the truth. After all, if it would be hard for them to accept that the bad guy could summon demons and other nasties, it might be just as difficult for them to believe Lady Silver killed him with a spell. Or they might even tacitly approve of her action even if they believe her story. "Insufficient evidence." wink wink nudge nudge. "

Proving the murder would have been really tough since this person legally doesn't even exist and he's very well-hidden. It would be as if the X-men killed Mr. Sinister; the authorities would be "who?" Some "top men" might be informed of this and the whole thing kept classified just given the danger and bizzareness of the whole thing. Legally she'd probably be in the clear but personally... that's another matter. It's the tarnishing of an angel.

*needs millions of dollars to buy champions and then publish comics. Don't worry... I just wanna borrow some stuff*

;)Keep it up. I like to write stories about my PCs too. I've been working on one now for over 2 years where my character Zl'f gets kidnapped by white slavers, gets free (read: Beats the hell out of the slavers), clashes with the Russian authorities including some superagents (She was wanted at the time for supposedly murdering her father), and finally...

That's about as far as I've gotten. :D

[Rapier]

Actually, as you descibe it it's 'How does my character feel about having to kill' whereas its usually described as 'How does my character feel about the subject of killing others, be it him/herself or by others'. A character with your disadvantage is able to do this: "I can't bring myself to kill you, even though I know that by allowing you to live you may one day return to make me regret it" (Turns to another character who doesn't have a CvK) "Kill him". As far as I'm concerned that's not a very heroic mindset

Whatever a heroes reason for his CvK he is doing his companions a disservace if he allows them to use lethal force without at least arguing against it if only because they will go down in his estimation for ignoring his moral beliefs.

That said I have a character who has 'Doesn't kill' out of pure survival instinct (the demon that shares her body is allowed to attempt to eat her soul if she ever kills anyone) but that's not really a Psych Limitation since she is not opposed to others killing (and would proabably play out the scene above)

Oh and in my games 'Casual killer' is a pointed psych limitation since it sets them apart from the vast majority of people (who don't see lethal force as an answer to everything) and would make people with it roll EGO not to use full lethal force against someone who was opposing them/annoying them/in their way on the sidewalk/looking at them funny. Said people would have an increasing level of Hunted: Law enforcement and decent supers everywhere.
Yeah, I can see that. I use an additional/other disad to cover how you react to violence done by others. I think there can and is often a disconnect between your personal feelings of "Will I Kill" and "How do I feel about Violence." While rare, it is still very possible to kill someone with an EB. Wouldn't a character with a 20 pt "Totally Opposed to Killing" have an issue firing off an EB?

I believe that most of the people (in a modern society) have a CvK at the Strong level (EGO roll required). They can kill and would to protect home and family. But most of those people are also not dead set against war.

In my mind they are two separate, yet related, questions:

1) How do I feel about taking a life?
2) How do I feel about violence and/or others taking a life?

I just can't help but feel that someone with a 20 pt TOTALLY DEAD-SET AGAINST KILLING, is not going to tossing around energy blasts and punches. That's anti-violence of any form...and wouldn't make a very good superhero.

[BcAugust]

This is interesting, mainly because I have a character in somewhat of the same boat. She's got a 20 CvK, hates other people using normally lethal attacks, and just landed in an alternate future where VIPER took over.

The interesting thing is that Nox is support even normally. (Slight Martial arts, and a staff are her only attack powers, and she only uses them against other supers) There isn't a concern about her killing (She wouldn't) but the question of being support has come up out of game.

I'm thinking that she's won't use her powers to put her or her teammates in a position likely to kill, but she will be very willing to play medvac or rescue missions. (Her other total psych lim is Protective of Innocents and Teammates) Inflitration and info gathering operations are still... iffy. Her powers are perfect for such, but it would likely come down to a case to case basis.

On her teammates killing.... Well, she'll try all out to stop them, but the repercusions will have to be played out.

[Koshka]

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."

I once ran a vigilante with this sort of attitude. However, she didn't have a CvK. What she had was a Code Of Honor that wouldn't let her escalate force over what her opponent was using. So, go after Steel Demon hand-to-hand and she would just beat you up with Kung Fu. Pull a weapon on her, and she'd draw on you. If that meant you wound up dead, you should have known better than to draw in the first place.

[Koshka]

Go offline for a day and a half while my brother installs my CD-RW drive, and the boards take off :)


I'd give him {Captain America} 10 points if that, or more likely your 'Code Vs. Murder' varient (which is a lower pt value for being less common). He supports war and he can kill in certain circumstances without any qualms (much like many action heroes who mow through nameless mooks without a second thought).

I'm not up to date on modern comics, but back when Cap had to decapitate Baron Blood he sure looked like he was having to make an EGO Roll to manage it (and almost lost his cookies afterwards).

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm not up to date on modern comics, but back when Cap had to decapitate Baron Blood he sure looked like he was having to make an EGO Roll to manage it (and almost lost his cookies afterwards).

And many would classify a vampire as "not alive" for C vs K, as well. MU Cap has developed a Code vs Killing, evolving from "Super-Soldier" to "Super Hero". Ultimates Cap remains a soldier, and has no code vs killing. [Toss Banner out of the plane - if he doesn't change, we're no worse off.]

[rbezold]

For what it's worth...

In my younger days when I was playing with some pretty young players, I was constantly tryong to convince them that Wolverine HKAs were not the answer to every social problem. One of the 'solutions' I came up with was to double the value of CvK and tell players that while someone who had CvK might kill if in a desperate enough situation, no way could they handle having a KA with them at all times.

Sadly, they agonized over it for awhile, then went with the KAs.

I hate Wolverine.

[JmOz]

I have not read all of the thread but some random thoughts anyways:

1) The disad described should be "Opposed to war", during the VERY PATRIOTIC times of WWII I could see it being a common disad...I would also require a couple of hunteds and a nasty little rep to go with it (Damb TRAITOR)

2) I have been recently re reading my All-SS issues, many of them really did not have CvK

3) My current character has "police Code vs Killing" at 10 points. Will allow for surender first, will give warning, will shoot to wound if safley can, etc...

[Koshka]

1) The disad described should be "Opposed to war", during the VERY PATRIOTIC times of WWII I could see it being a common disad...I would also require a couple of hunteds and a nasty little rep to go with it (Damb TRAITOR)


I was thinking a Social Limitation myself, but Reputation might work better. The character is female (that player always cross-genders), so it's not like she could be considered a draft dodger ....



And many would classify a vampire as "not alive" for C vs K, as well.


Given that Cap knew beyond any doubt that Baron Blood was a real vampire, I'm certain that's what let him do it.

And after watching the Mythbusters holiday special the other day, I'm thinking the "don't barf" look on his face might have been as much from the aroma of decay as anything else. We'd never seen the full "Stinky Car" test, but the clips in that special almost had my friend heaving.

[Wanderer]

I once ran a vigilante with this sort of attitude. However, she didn't have a CvK. What she had was a Code Of Honor that wouldn't let her escalate force over what her opponent was using. So, go after Steel Demon hand-to-hand and she would just beat you up with Kung Fu. Pull a weapon on her, and she'd draw on you. If that meant you wound up dead, you should have known better than to draw in the first place.

That's one of the ways I use to eschew traditional 20-pts. CvK (which I loathe) and still have characters look somehow "heroic" (no casual killing for convenience's sake, no gratuitous uses of force, etc.). Pick some Code Of Honor that mandates things like fairness in combat, letting redeemeable opponents live, proprtionate uses of force, etc. and/or Protective of Innocents, so that innocent "civilians" are to be kept safe (that still allows heart-wringing situations like having to kill demon-possessed housewife to stop word-destroying baddie entering reality). In a way, I use Honorable as a substitute for Code of the Hero, and Protective of Innocents for CvK as the defining superhero disadvantages.

[Trebuchet]

That's one of the ways I use to eschew traditional 20-pts. CvK (which I loathe) and still have characters look somehow "heroic" (no casual killing for convenience's sake, no gratuitous uses of force, etc.). Pick some Code Of Honor that mandates things like fairness in combat, letting redeemeable opponents live, proprtionate uses of force, etc. and/or Protective of Innocents, so that innocent "civilians" are to be kept safe (that still allows heart-wringing situations like having to kill demon-possessed housewife to stop word-destroying baddie entering reality). In a way, I use Honorable as a substitute for Code of the Hero, and Protective of Innocents for CvK as the defining superhero disadvantages.I think those are perfectly valid alternatives to CvK. Not every hero is going to have CvK, although it will probably be fairly common in Golden Age or Silver Age games.

Of the 8 player characters in our campaign, I believe 6 have CvK to some extent. But our game is very Silver Age.

[Wanderer]

I think those are perfectly valid alternatives to CvK. Not every hero is going to have CvK, although it will probably be fairly common in Golden Age or Silver Age games.

Of the 8 player characters in our campaign, I believe 6 have CvK to some extent. But our game is very Silver Age.

I have no real issue with limited forms of CvK (say 5-10 pts.), like the ones detailed in DC, that allow killing in self-defense, to protect or avenge an innocent third party, a loved one, etc. and let the character work more like a "good" super-soldier and less like a sainteish boyscout. It's the "I won't kill 1 to save 10.000" Com Total CvK that I can't really stand or empathize with enough to properly RP. I find limited forms of CvK fine for Bronze/Iron Age stories, my preferred default, at least for those characters that don't have the full "judge, jury and executioner" vigilante mindset (and in those cases, along with it, the disadvantages above are a fine balncing tool). Well, even Code of The Hero might be a fine defining Superhero lim, as long as it can be redefined as "fearlessly heroic: feels dutybound to put his/her life on the line", and not as "must act as traditional four-color hero").

IMO the "with great power comes great responsibility" theme can be easily reinterpreted in a non-Silver Age way: since destiny has given the character godlike power, he feels a duty to use it responsibly to act as judge and jury (and or not executioner according to personal morality and background) for the world according to the best guidelines of his conscience and judgement, just because his personal power is comparable to the sum of millions.