Disadvantage Discussion: CAK

[white peregrine]

just curious about how some of the different people out there handle this situation regarding killing attacks and how it would relate to a 15pt CAK.

would such a character use normal weapons at all or would they forsake them due to their CAK?

the reason I ask is that I figure the average military/police personel would have a 15pt CAK, imo. While they do not kill all around they do recognize the need to use force and when they use their weapon the intent is to "end" the confrontation quickly.

put these people against supers and make that person a character...would using a pistol, which is an rka be in violation of their 15 CAK? or am I totally off base here and police/military would not even have the CAK limitation at all...?

[Mightybec]

Originally posted by white peregrine
just curious about how some of the different people out there handle this situation regarding killing attacks and how it would relate to a 15pt CAK.

would such a character use normal weapons at all or would they forsake them due to their CAK?

the reason I ask is that I figure the average military/police personel would have a 15pt CAK, imo. While they do not kill all around they do recognize the need to use force and when they use their weapon the intent is to "end" the confrontation quickly.

put these people against supers and make that person a character...would using a pistol, which is an rka be in violation of their 15 CAK? or am I totally off base here and police/military would not even have the CAK limitation at all...?

I believe that law enforcement would be reluctant to kill, but the military would be a little tougher. Basically, when ordered to take out an enemy target, breathing or not, it's done.

[white peregrine]

I dunno about all that. I was in the military and I would definately consider myself with a 15pt version of CAK. while i may not like it I would have done it. goes back to the mind set of if you are going to use a weapon you aim to kill....not aim to wound. this applies to both the military and the police in my experience.

[Mightybec]

I kinda disagree. As a veteran, I know that if one of the enemy were in the way of me going home safely, I'd take him out without a second thought. Now, I wouldn't get my jollies by doing it, but the fact that it was done without hesitation would go against a CAK, in my opinion.

Mightybec

[Monolith]

You need to break any Psychological Limitation down to its core parts.

Someone with CAK "Moderate" would be hesitant to kill, and would delay and think about it, but would kill if absolutely necessary (though they would hate themselves for doing it). This is Captain America after he killed Baron Blood.

Someone with CAK "Strong" would act as above, but would actually need to make an EGO roll to kill someone (this would also cause psychological backlash that would require future EGO rolls for other things). The ability to kill is taken out of the character's choice and it comes down to a roll. This is Superman after he killed the Krytonians and adopted a new identity/personality.

Someone with CAK "Total" gets no decision and no roll. They are totally committed to not killing. If the only choice is to kill Dr. Destroyer or let him walk, they let him walk. I have no idea who this is, but it is someone. :)

Now all three types of characters would be hesitant to use lethal force, but the first two could and would if the situation demanded it. The third would not, no matter what the circumstances.

[white peregrine]

ahhh...but its not the enemy that is preventing you from leaving but your own sense of loyalty to the service you were a member of. in this case you have a CAK vs Subject to Orders limitation, imo.

sure...I was of the same mindset, but when it comes down to it I would never kill anyone now except in my own defence or the defence of a loved one. hence the 15pt version which I thionk the average person has. I could see it dropping to a 10pt version for military and police personel but that about it. as most of the people I knew in the service and the police officers I know are not "killers" per say and are not that callous about the whole thing...

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Monolith
You need to break any Psychological Limitation down to its core parts.

Someone with CAK "Moderate" would be hesitant to kill, and would delay and think about it, but would kill if absolutely necessary (though they would hate themselves for doing it). This is Captain America after he killed Baron Blood.

Someone with CAK "Strong" would act as above, but would actually need to make an EGO roll to kill someone (this would also cause psychological backlash that would require future EGO rolls for other things). The ability to kill is taken out of the character's choice and it comes down to a roll. This is Superman after he killed the Krytonians and adopted a new identity/personality.

Someone with CAK "Total" gets no decision and no roll. They are totally committed to not killing. If the only choice is to kill Dr. Destroyer or let him walk, they let him walk. I have no idea who this is, but it is someone. :)

Now all three types of characters would be hesitant to use lethal force, but the first two could and would if the situation demanded it. The third would not, no matter what the circumstances.

agreed.
now lets take it further. mechanically a 2d6 KA and a 12d6 attack are nearly the same when taken against an agent type. most agents I have seen written up have between 5-10 pts of resistant defence via armor or forcefield.

so here we have our hero using a 12d6 attack against an agent, would this violate a CAK total cak?

what about a 2d6 KA taken against the same agent?

[Hermit]

Originally posted by white peregrine


the reason I ask is that I figure the average military/police personel would have a 15pt CAK, imo.


Well, of course, the Police and the Armed Forces aren't cookie cutter people, so understand I'm generalizing here but... I think the average one would have a zero point 'Reluctant to kill' . What holds them back (And drives them forward) are other limitations like "Loyal to compatriots" , "Obeys orders" , or even "Code of Honor" (Though, in the modern sense, replace chivalry or bushido with the ideals of whatever group they serve with ).

The other thing to bear in mind is Social Limitations. Subject to Orders, or Expected to bring honor to the Corps can put a lot of external pressure on how much force to use or not use.

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Hermit
Well, of course, the Police and the Armed Forces aren't cookie cutter people, so understand I'm generalizing here but... I think the average one would have a zero point 'Reluctant to kill' . What holds them back (And drives them forward) are other limitations like "Loyal to compatriots" , "Obeys orders" , or even "Code of Honor" (Though, in the modern sense, replace chivalry or bushido with the ideals of whatever group they serve with ).

The other thing to bear in mind is Social Limitations. Subject to Orders, or Expected to bring honor to the Corps can put a lot of external pressure on how much force to use or not use.

Opt Reluctant to Kill? I really disagree here. while those people who join the service are not your average people I don't think they are all that "callous" regarding killing in general. I am becoming more and more of the mindset that a 10pt CAK would work. this allows for the option and the appropriate reactions to the use of killing force.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by white peregrine
Opt Reluctant to Kill? I really disagree here. while those people who join the service are not your average people I don't think they are all that "callous" regarding killing in general. I am becoming more and more of the mindset that a 10pt CAK would work. this allows for the option and the appropriate reactions to the use of killing force. Police and the Military are trained to use some discretion at certain circumstances. In the case of the Police, especially, this can provide opportunities for them to come into danger when they may have simply shot first and asked questions later. You can decide what that is worth in game terms.

[Worldmaker]

Here's how I handled it in the Master List of Psychological Limitations:

Attitude About Lethal Force (Point Values Vary; See Below)

This Psychological Limitation covers a wide range of feelings, beliefs, moral codes, and ideals about the same thing: when is lethal force justified. The actual point values of the Psychological Limitation vary from attitude to attitude, as detailed below:

Casual Killer (Common, Strong: 15 Points): A Casual Killer has no compunctions about killing. He will kill quickly and without hesitation or a second thought. It is part of his nature. He feels no remorse for his victims and has no issue with other people who use lethal force (in fact, he expects other people to use lethal force). This does not mean that he kills randomly and with no thought about consequences; it just means that when killing is called for (in his opinion), he kills. It is strongly recommended that only villains be allowed to take this disadvantage, as it makes for a cold blooded and brutal character.

Code vs. Killing (Common, Total: 20 Points): This disadvantage is perhaps the superhero Psychological Limit. If your character doesn't have it, you should be thinking long and hard as to why not. A character with this disadvantage absolutely refuses to consider lethal force as a valid option except under the most dire of circumstances (such as "kill or the planet dies" or "kill one person to prevent a million others from dying"). They dislike people who are willing to use lethal force, and will actively (and if necessary, physically) try to prevent them from doing so. If the choice comes down to using lethal force to stop an opponent and letting him escape, a character with this Psychological Limit would let the opponent escape. This does not necessarily mean that the character is a coward or a weak fighter. Against a foe noted for his resistance to harm, the character will use his attacks to the best of his ability. Against unknown opponents he will pull punches, use lower power attacks, or start out with entangles and similar non-damaging powers. And please note that a lethal attack does not have to be a Killing Attack.

Prefers Not To Kill (Common, Moderate: 10 Points): The weakest of all of the Attitude About Lethal Force disadvantages, this Psychological Limit indicates that the character is willing to use lethal force when necessary, which is very, very rare in the character's opinion. The character does have moral objections to killing, but realizes that sometimes it may be necessary. Such a character is willing to fight and do injury, but in a moment where the decision is "Kill/Don't Kill", this character will always choose "Don't Kill", unless the situation is such that not killing is the worse of two evils. At that point, the character will not hesitate before killing. In four color superhero games, this disadvantage should be restricted to villains. In more lethal settings, such as military campaigns, or post-holocaust scenarios, this might be the default attitude for "good guy" characters. In such cases, the GM should watch the player like a hawk to make sure the Psychological Limitation is being roleplayed correctly. It should not be used as an excuse for a murderous character.

Reluctant to Kill (Common, Strong: 15 Points): A character who is Reluctant to Kill has moral convictions against using lethal force on an opponent; however, these convictions are not so strong that the character refuses to recognize that lethal force may be the solution to some situations. Under extreme circumstances, the character must make an Ego roll in order to use lethal force. Generally, the "extreme situations" involve saving the lives of others.

Will Not Kill (Common, Total: 20 Points): Functionally, this Psych Limit is almost identical to Code vs. Killing. A person who Will Not Kill has personal convictions against the use of deadly force, and will never resort to such measures except under the most direst of circumstances (as with Code vs. Killing, the circumstances usually add up to "kill or the planet dies"). However, unlike a person with Code vs. Killing, a person who Will Not Kill doesn't try to actively dictate his beliefs to his companions. He won't like other people using killing attacks, but he also won't interpose himself between them and a target either.

Will Not "Murder" (Uncommon, Total: 15 pts): The character with this Psychological Limitation has no qualms about using lethal force in combat. Nor does he hesitate to use "excessive" force (bringing a gun to a knife fight, for example). However, he draws a very distinct line between killing to survive and murder. The character won't put an extra shot into a downed opponent "just to make sure", will accept genuine surrender, doesn't fire on non-combatants, won't make lethal booby-traps, etc. It could be a genuine moral decision on his part, or a superstitious fear that something bad will happen if he kills in cold blood--or even a promise to someone he respects. In four-color superhero games, this disadvantage should be restricted to villains (as real heroes will never choose killing as a first option). It combines nicely with Honorable or Loyal to the Cause for the "noble villain" archetype. In more lethal settings, such as military campaigns, or post-holocaust scenarios, this might be the default attitude for "good guy" characters.

Most cops would fall into Reluctant to Kill, while most soldiers would fall into Will Not Murder... at least most of the soldiers I served with.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by white peregrine
Opt Reluctant to Kill? I really disagree here. while those people who join the service are not your average people I don't think they are all that "callous" regarding killing in general. I am becoming more and more of the mindset that a 10pt CAK would work. this allows for the option and the appropriate reactions to the use of killing force.
I think most people do have a 10 point (Common, Moderate) CAK (they will kill if they have to, but prefer to not have to). But I also think it is a cultural thing. Different parts of the country and world have different ideals on the sanctity of human life. These different areas have different values (some people would have no problem killing someone who was robbing them, other people would only be willing to punch them) so I do not think a "one size fits all" approach will always work.

[Hermit]

Originally posted by white peregrine
Opt Reluctant to Kill? I really disagree here. while those people who join the service are not your average people I don't think they are all that "callous" regarding killing in general. I am becoming more and more of the mindset that a 10pt CAK would work. this allows for the option and the appropriate reactions to the use of killing force.

A zero point reluctant to kill isn't callous at all. It's still just that, a reluctance to kill... just because you don't get points for it doesn't mean the person is cold blooded. Under 5th Edition rules, even moderate pysch lims require an ego check (Though at a +5 bonus I believe), so I'm not sure the moderate applies to those who would do what they must without need of a roll...then I don't doubt, RP the moral quandry afterwards.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Hermit
Under 5th Edition rules, even moderate pysch lims require an ego check (Though at a +5 bonus I believe), so I'm not sure the moderate applies to those who would do what they must without need of a roll...then I don't doubt, RP the moral quandry afterwards.
Yeah, but let's be honest. That is a 16- roll even for a normal. The chances of failing that roll are very low. You might as well just call it a gimme. :)

[white peregrine]

so where would this leave a character who is, for all intents and purposes, a "normal person" against supers? could they have a KA and still run with a 10/15pts CAK? would such an action be in violation of standard 4 color comics?

given that hit location are not used it seems that using our agent type again a 12d6 attack is practically as lethal as a 2d6 KA.

I wonder if the viewing of KA's are becoming to extreme due to the name of the power in question. if one does not use hit locations it is highly unlikely that a 2d6 KA is actually going to KILL anyone...even a normal person. sure it will knock out a standard person but it is not going to kill them. figure average body is going to be 7 and average joe has 10....he's still alive.
...no, what kills a normal joe is taking a KA and using hit locations which multiplies the damage dealt...

thoughts...?

I like the Will Not Murder write up...seems that may be what most military and law enforcement types would run with. so what happens when a hero takes this? would this only be relegated to "dark champs" campaigns or could a 4 Color hero actually take it?

[Hermit]

Originally posted by Monolith
Yeah, but let's be honest. That is a 16- roll even for a normal. The chances of failing that roll are very low. You might as well just call it a gimme. :)

True, unless someone has an EGO of like 4, and I sure HOPE those guys don't get in the Police or Armed Forces :)

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Hermit
True, unless someone has an EGO of like 4, and I sure HOPE those guys don't get in the Police or Armed Forces :)
..actually I think I knew of a couple during my time in....heh

[Monolith]

Originally posted by white peregrine
so where would this leave a character how is for all intents and purposes a "normal person" against supers? could they have a KA and still run with a 10/15pts CAK? would such an action be in violation of standard 4 color comics?
I think there are some concepts which you can over think when trying to put exacts into the game system. If a "normal person" hero in Champions will have a hard time killing someone, but that is because the rules are written in a way that makes killing difficult. Think about it, a .44 magnum does 2d6 RKA. On average that is only a 7 BODY roll. That will not kill someone. A hero would have to shoot someone 2 times to kill them. So when working within the game system, a hero with CAK will not take that second shot. He will not intentionally try and kill that character.

The game system cannot refect real life. In real life someone who did not kill would not shoot a foe with a .44 magnum, but in the comics characters like Batman or Hawkeye are adept at using killing attacks in a way that only injures but does not kill. I think that is the way you need to view a "normal person" character who also uses killing weapons.

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Monolith
I think there are some concepts which you can over think when trying to put exacts into the game system. If a "normal person" hero in Champions will have a hard time killing someone, but that is because the rules are written in a way that makes killing difficult. Think about it, a .44 magnum does 2d6 RKA. On average that is only a 7 BODY roll. That will not kill someone. A hero would have to shoot someone 2 times to kill them. So when working within the game system, a hero with CAK will not take that second shot. He will not intentionally try and kill that character.

unless you use hit locations...that is what kills people within the system.


The game system cannot refect real life. In real life someone who did not kill would not shoot a foe with a .44 magnum, but in the comics characters like Batman or Hawkeye are adept at using killing attacks in a way that only injures but does not kill. I think that is the way you need to view a "normal person" character who also uses killing weapons.
I agree that people in the comics that are using lethal force are trained in its use. hence, we see that hit locations are not being observed in 4Color strips. while the attack drops the opponent it does not kill them.

this force being used by our weapon user is also frequently equalled if not surpassed by friends who use none "lethal" force....and that's a question itself....at what point does a "non-lethal" force become lethal force and in violation of a CAK?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by white peregrine
this force being used by our weapon user is also frequently equalled if not surpassed by friends who use none "lethal" force....and that's a question itself....at what point does a "non-lethal" force become lethal force and in violation of a CAK?
To me it is the point where a player knows that an average roll wth the attack will put a target at zero or lower BODY. If a player uses a 3d6 RKA against a normal he knows he will put that person at 0 or -1 with an average roll. At that point he is using lethal force. Of course if he is fighting someone who he knows can take it (such as armored agents) then it is not considered lethal force.

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Monolith
To me it is the point where a player knows that an average roll wth the attack will put a target at zero or lower BODY. If a player uses a 3d6 RKA against a normal he knows he will put that person at 0 or -1 with an average roll. At that point he is using lethal force. Of course if he is fighting someone who he knows can take it (such as armored agents) then it is not considered lethal force.
I assume the same applies to normal attacks...

[Monolith]

Originally posted by white peregrine
I assume the same applies to normal attacks...
Yes, the same applies to all types of damage whether they work against PD/ED, rPD/rED, Mental Defense, Flash Defense, or Power Defense. Any attack that can put someone to 0 or lower BODY would be considered lethal force, IMO.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith
Yes, the same applies to all types of damage whether they work against PD/ED, rPD/rED, Mental Defense, Flash Defense, or Power Defense. Any attack that can put someone to 0 or lower BODY would be considered lethal force, IMO. My opinion also.

[Arthur]

This was discussed in an old issue of AC I used to have. It was a very good article, and I remember the gist of it.

The default condition (at zero points) is "reluctant to kill". The average person is very hesitant to take another human life. They will do it out of self-preservation, but almost never under other circumstances (back when we still had real trial by jury in the USA instead of the current stacked deck system, most defendants who pled "I killed him because I feared for my own life" got off because that's almost always what it really takes).

The article discussed various levels of CAK from the 5 point all the way to the 25-point level. The 5-point was almost no different from a regular person (perhaps they would fire several warning shots first even if in mortal danger), while the 25-point CAK would unquestionably die before killing.

There was a discussion of the Disads in the other direction ("Casual Killer" at the low level, "Psychopath" at the high level) and their consequences. IIRC, that one was in DC.

Furthermore, the article discussed what constituted "lethal force" from the characters' POV. Sure, we have a Game Mechanic called "Killing Attack", but the characters can't see that: a 12d N EB is "lethal force" from a roleplaying perspective.

This is all from memory.

[white peregrine]

Originally posted by Arthur
Furthermore, the article discussed what constituted "lethal force" from the characters' POV. Sure, we have a Game Mechanic called "Killing Attack", but the characters can't see that: a 12d N EB is "lethal force" from a roleplaying perspective.
]

due to this I wonder if they should rename KA to something else. calling it a KA while somewhat true seems a bit off, especially when brought forth into a 4Color campaign where it will more than likely not kill a thing unless used repeatedly against the target...

when people see a KA on a character sheet the natural reaction is think that the attack is going to kill the target of such an attack outright when this more than likely is not the case.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by white peregrine
]

due to this I wonder if they should rename KA to something else. calling it a KA while somewhat true seems a bit off, especially when brought forth into a 4Color campaign where it will more than likely not kill a thing unless used repeatedly against the target...


Well, yeah. Take Superman. If he punches a normal, with full strength, the normal is paste. So, he doesn't. If he's fighting thugs, he'll restrict damage, and pull his punch to boot. This is why the 'pulling a punch' maneuver is in there. :) In a game with CAKs, that maneuver should be used often. Really, it's great. Consider taking penalty skill levels to avoid the OCV penalty.

The reason why CAK is a big disadvantage comes out when he's fighting people who /look/ normal but are actually tough. Superman, Hulk, Rogue... they've all run into enemies who they went easy on at first, but then found out were actually super-strong. In effect, they lost a phase or two before they realised the foe could actually take more pounding.

I wonder if this could also be taken as a limitation on strength - 'only for foes who can take it.' :D

[Crimson Arrow]

Arthur is right. Under 4th Ed, it was suggested everyone was "reluctant to kill". I'm glad he remembered where that was written about - I couldn't recall.

Re: the Captain America/ Baron Blood example Monolith raised, I'd disagree. Cap has the 15 point Disadvantage or maybe even the 20 point one. He either made his EGO Roll or the GM let him make a Roll to reflect the fact that you can't play nicely with vampires. In the former case, CA might even have got a small bonus to reflect those circumstances. Cap probably has a base EGO roll of 13-/14- (please DO NOT start arguing about this, it's just an example), so this wouldn't be too hard a roll, especially if he got that bonus.

I know he used to be a soldier etc., but Captain America transcends that, IMHO. He's one of the most heroic Marvel characters ever.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow
Arthur is right. Under 4th Ed, it was suggested everyone was "reluctant to kill". I'm glad he remembered where that was written about - I couldn't recall.

Re: the Captain America/ Baron Blood example Monolith raised, I'd disagree. Cap has the 15 point Disadvantage or maybe even the 20 point one. He either made his EGO Roll or the GM let him make a Roll to reflect the fact that you can't play nicely with vampires. In the former case, CA might even have got a small bonus to reflect those circumstances. Cap probably has a base EGO roll of 13-/14- (please DO NOT start arguing about this, it's just an example), so this wouldn't be too hard a roll, especially if he got that bonus.

I know he used to be a soldier etc., but Captain America transcends that, IMHO. He's one of the most heroic Marvel characters ever. He's also got the loophole: You can't kill the undead.

[Crimson Arrow]

Originally posted by Agent X

He's also got the loophole: You can't kill the undead.

Good point (although I think you might be at least partially humorous) I'd assume CAK applies to all sentients, so you'd think twice about "killing" Machine Man, the Vision, vampires, ancient tree beings, living crystals etc.

Actually, now that I think about it didn't Cap "kill" Machinesmith, whose conscience was trapped in a computer system?

[Fur Face]

Codes versus Killing are based upon a culture's perception, and that perception changes by circumstances. Many times someone will use lethal force for one of two reasons: innocents are threatened, and/or there is no other alternative at the time. If a burglar breaks into your home and you shoot him, if the burglar wasn't doing anything that threatened you or your loved ones, then you used excessive lethal force. However, if he was coming towards you with a knife and you empty a clip on him, no one would normally question it. But, if they found out that you were trained as a martial artist and knew how to disarm knife wielding maniacs, then you could be questioned.

I write these things because a superhero is supposed to have more options, so she should be less likely to get away with lethal force. If a brick who bounces bullets off her chest kills a punk a pistol, then that would be considered excessive by the public in general. That is the other part about codes versus killing - how others will percieve you in your culture. It doesn't matter if you use a killing attack to disarm a foe, as long as you tired to disarm him.

Outside of cultural perceptions are they individual ones, and these also vary by situation. Having been served in the military and the police, I can tell you that although you were always ready to use lethal force in the defense of innocents or yourself, no one wanted to. I thank the Lord that every time I pointed a gun at someone and told them to stop, they did. But I would have pulled trigger if I had too, no questions asked.

Also, unless you are a superbly trained marksman, no one ever shoots to wound, because you'll end up missing. You either shoot them or you don't. If you shoot, you shoot to take some down.

Alright, I guess what I'm finally trying to say is that although a code versus killing should exist, its enforcement will depend upon the situation and the culture. This is something that definitely needs to be clarified before a campaign begins!

Sorry about my long winded response.:D

[white peregrine]

there have been multiple point that have been brought up that are quite valid in regards to the use and viewing of lethal force. I agree with many of them in principle but then when I look at these attacks "in game" I begin to wonder. The time that a character actually "pulls their punch" seems extremely rare to me, and this includes going against normals. mechanically I think we need to look at a "breaking point" which determines what is and is not lethal force.

as I mentioned earlier, the pure labeling on a KA sets most gm's that I have encountered on edge. they seem to think the worst when they see this on a character sheet when in all actuality it is really no more lethal than a normal attack, especially when we have our poor agent facing them both.

with all the previous in mind, would you find it unacceptable for a character based agent to use a KA as their primary attack mode? would this violate a 10pt CAK? I would think not given that a lower powered KA is not going to kill anyone, even an agent type. given that 4Color does not use hit locations, for the most part, I believe that the use of a KA is acceptable, especially if the dice do not exceed 2 dice. the only time I would personally look very hard at it is when we are talking 3 or 4 dice worth. at this point the likelyhood of actually killing a person is more possible but still not likely...figure on 4 dice you are talking 14 body on average. while this will hurt the agent extremely they more than likely have some form of resistant defence. the common street thug on the other hand is more than likely going to drop outright and be at negative body...our hero better be performing a paramedics roll...

KA...poor name, imo, for an attack that is really no more dangerous than a normal attack. especially when a normal attack can start stacking advantages that make it just as dangerous.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by white peregrine
there have been multiple point that have been brought up that are quite valid in regards to the use and viewing of lethal force. I agree with many of them in principle but then when I look at these attacks "in game" I begin to wonder. The time that a character actually "pulls their punch" seems extremely rare to me, and this includes going against normals. mechanically I think we need to look at a "breaking point" which determines what is and is not lethal force.
In my games, as regards characters with CAKs, they shouldn't even take a chance at killing the opposition (unless provoked or otherwise decide to use lethal force). This is especially so for 20-pointers. You don't even /risk/ killing anyone. That means doing less damage than normal, pulling punches, because if you do accidentally kill someone...

with all the previous in mind, would you find it unacceptable for a character based agent to use a KA as their primary attack mode? would this violate a 10pt CAK? I would think not given that a lower powered KA is not going to kill anyone, even an agent type.
Sure. But only against people who the character knows can take it This means, among other things, voluntarily hitting armour (in the case of armour with an activation roll). A high roll against an unarmoured target can kill, even with a 2d6K attack. And, of course, the BODY rules only really apply to PCs... NPCs, especially grunts, can die long before they reach 0 BODY. This is usually a factor of hit locations, but the GM can rule it any time. And if someone really wants to be careful about not killing, they should take that into account - even if the GM NEVER rules such. It /is/ possible, and only in the most four-colour of four-colour games should it be ignored. And even then, you probably shouldn't be using KAs. :D

Anyway... for me, a CAK not only includes 'killing,' but also a reluctance to harm innocents. In my games, it goes hand in hand. Some other people may prefer multiple disads. Even Grifter (Image comics), a hardened killer, felt incredibly guilty when a woman got injured by ricochets in a fight that he was involved in. Guilty to the point where he nearly blew the mission to rescue her, take her to hospital, and give her all the money he was getting from the mission. If Superman accidentally injures someone, then the bad guy's getting away - 'cause Supes has to fly someone to the hospital.

A properly responsible hero will take these things into account. If there's any chance of an attack killing someone, they won't use it. Unless, of course, they have a weaker CAK and decide they're gonna kill someone. :D If there are civilians around, they won't use guns for fear of missing and hitting said bystanders. They won't go 'well, there isn't much chance of me missing, and even if I do miss, they'll only take 7 BODY on average... they'll likely live!' They simply won't take the chance. 'Cause even a 2d6RKA /can/ kill someone... a 6d6EB will hardly ever kill anyone. Even a normal. That's why KAs are KAs - they won't necessarily kill anyone, but, in general, they're much more likely to.

Now, that's not to mean that all heroes will think the same way. Those who don't, though, will often develop a reputation for being a loose cannon, or even dangerous. And, naturally, this is the way I run it in my games - a kind of high superhero, but not all the way to four-colour. Other games will have different moral attitudes. It's one thing that's important to spell out to your players as the game begins.

[zornwil]

Interesting to see the interpretations of CAK. I always felt a "moderate" CAK meant that the person would only kill in indisputable self-defense and even then, being a super-person, generally only by accident, by just applying too much force. A "moderate" might also kill if they felt it would really save lots of lives RIGHT THERE AND THEN, absolutely NOT as in "this would prevent killings". Not at all - only if the person is in the Spiderman situation where on one hand he's holding a villain versus on the other hand holding a subway-load of people. THEN he could let the villain die, but would be devastated for life by it. Also, in the presence of a teammate killing, someone with moderate would have some problem with it but not so great that it's an issue (assuming the teamamte isn't a casual killer of course). To me in a super-hero game that's a moderate code vs. killing.

"Strong" would be more like you wouldn't do it at all even in the circumstances above. And they would give a teammate a hard time and have a hard time dealing with that person.

"Total" means they would take their teammate in and have them arrested or otherwise restrained (suspended animation,e tc.).

[Killer Shrike]

I personally dont think everybody should be assumed to have a CvK at all.

For starters, just considering game balance and mathematics, its only a disadvantage if it inconveniences or impairs a character. Most people are not impaired by a CvK, even if they have one, bcs they are not in a position where it applies often enough to make it a worthwhile disadvantage. Is it valid for Ms. Spinster the elderly librarian to take CvK, when she will probably NEVER be in a situation where it matters? I would say, no. Its not really a Disadvantage for her, its just flavor.

Further, if EVERYBODY, or even almost everybody had CvK, then the points all balance out and you might as well just remove them from all characters; its always better to reduce an equation when possible. In stead of rating a unilateral CvK as points for any who take it, instead assume that everyone has it at the Moderate level for 0 points and assess variations of having a more severe version of CvK or not having it at all as Disadvantages. Otherwise, if almost everyone is assumed to have it by default you are just giving points away on a freebie "disadvantage".

Personally I think most people hesitate to kill in America because of the legal ramifications of killing someone more than anything else. Basically, you have to ask the question, "Is pulling the trigger on this guy worth going to jail?" If the answer is no, you dont pull the trigger.

Im also a veteran (USMC, 5 years), and I personally dont have any real compunctions about killing other than the fact that its socially unacceptible, and a really extreme way to make a point. Im not a "Casual Killer" obviously, but if I were in a situation where I was in a violent conflict (such as a mugging or a robbery) and I had the means, I would kill the assailants without hesitation, eliminating any threats to the well being of myself and any innocent bystanders. I was like that before I joined the Corps, but that environment certainly reenforced the mentality.


As far as cops are concerned, personally I think most cops would not have any real code vs killing; particularly not hardened street cops. When its your life on the line, the nicities tend to go out the window. Desk types and rookies might start off "Reluctant" to kill, but I think they'd either get over it, get a new line of work, or get killed in fairly short order. Detectives and other higher ranked individuals might be a little different/more individualized, but still Id err on the side of 'practicality' over 'mercy'.

Also, remember that the HERO System is meant to depict cinematic action. In the movies, lots of people die, particularly in cop movies. Granted, you can do whatever you want with it, but the reason CvK is a DISADVANTAGE (and a fairly hefty one points-wise at the more extreme end) is because its implicitly assumed that lethal force will routinely be used by PCs and NPCs alike, and having a hang up over "pulling the trigger" so to speak can seriously inconvenience a character.


IMO, YMMV.....

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
I personally dont think everybody should be assumed to have a CvK at all.

For starters, just considering game balance and mathematics, its only a disadvantage if it inconveniences or impairs a character. Most people are not impaired by a CvK, even if they have one, bcs they are not in a position where it applies often enough to make it a worthwhile disadvantage. Is it valid for Ms. Spinster the elderly librarian to take CvK, when she will probably NEVER be in a situation where it matters? I would say, no. Its not really a Disadvantage for her, its just flavor.
Well, her being an NPC, her disadvantages don't matter. The 'default reluctance to kill' is something that, for me, only affects mainline characters. In other words, those characters who will be faced with that decision.

Further, if EVERYBODY, or even almost everybody had CvK, then the points all balance out and you might as well just remove them from all characters; its always better to reduce an equation when possible. In stead of rating a unilateral CvK as points for any who take it, instead assume that everyone has it at the Moderate level for 0 points and assess variations of having a more severe version of CvK or not having it at all as Disadvantages. Otherwise, if almost everyone is assumed to have it by default you are just giving points away on a freebie "disadvantage".
Well, that's something that should be handled campaign-by-campaign. :) But I think that's why 'reluctance to kill' is zero points, at least in many campaigns. In a vigilante or Image-inspired game, I'd make 'reluctance to kill' a disad.

Im also a veteran (USMC, 5 years), and I personally dont have any real compunctions about killing other than the fact that its socially unacceptible, and a really extreme way to make a point. Im not a "Casual Killer" obviously, but if I were in a situation where I was in a violent conflict (such as a mugging or a robbery) and I had the means, I would kill the assailants without hesitation, eliminating any threats to the well being of myself and any innocent bystanders. I was like that before I joined the Corps, but that environment certainly reenforced the mentality.

As far as cops are concerned, personally I think most cops would not have any real code vs killing; particularly not hardened street cops. When its your life on the line, the nicities tend to go out the window. Desk types and rookies might start off "Reluctant" to kill, but I think they'd either get over it, get a new line of work, or get killed in fairly short order. Detectives and other higher ranked individuals might be a little different/more individualized, but still Id err on the side of 'practicality' over 'mercy'.
For me, the difference is twofold: genre and capabilities. The first one is simple. In high superheroic games, killing is bad. There are ones where this is different, but a bit of it usually leaks in anyway.

The other point is about what people are capable of doing. Superheroes have weapons and attacks by which they can knock people out almost as easily as they can kill them. A normal human with a gun, however, often has no choice other than to kill. At least, you have to expect that killing is a likely result of shooting the target. Superheroes are also more able to expect that the target won't be able to kill them in one hit - they can spend some time at it.

A normal cop or soldier, however, has to a) realise that their only way of taking someone out, often, will likely kill them, and b) if they don't do it in one go, they may well get shot and killed themselves. Fair enough for the real work, but it's a lot harsher than just about any superhero game, and therefore not (in my opinion) a good basis for figuring out how superheroes work - unless you're playing a much darker, more 'realistic' game.

Of course, even in superhero games, a human cop walks around with an RKA pistol most of the time. For the cop, same as real life. For the hero, different story. They live in a different world, they're subject to much tighter moral rules.

[Killer Shrike]

Cops are NPCs as well.

What Im getting at is that if its not Disadvantageous to have a code vs Killing, then it isnt worth any points at all.

In a 4-Color campaign frex, it has no meaning because ALL characters have a code vs killing assumed; its the person that opts to kill that has difficulties, not the person who opts not to. Its worth no points.

In a Cyber-punk or an Old West, or many military or Sci-Fi campaigns, characters can be assumed to all have, if not out-right Casual Killer, then at least an assumed willingness to kill if necessary. The character that not only refuses to kill but also interferes with his fellow PCs or NPCs when they opt to kill suffers the difficulties. CvK is a huge disadvantage in such a campaign and worth the points whereas Casual Killer isnt a Disadvantage at all -- in fact, it could easily be the justification for a Reputation Perk: Bad Mo-fo.

Its only in the middle grounds like an Iron (or Pewter) Age Supers game where some kill and some dont, with the balance being somewhere in the middle where a practical approach to killing is the norm -- ie, kill in self defense or extreme provocation, but not "just because" -- where both CasKil and CvK are viable because they represent variations from the norm which can cause friction with both other characters and "the powers that be" in a given setting.

[white peregrine]

I think I have to disagree on the idea that people predominately do not kill because they fear the legal ramifications of such an action. if this was the only thing that kept people in check then I believe that we would see quite a few more murders as passions take ahold of people.

also, to assume that the majority of people run with the 0pt Reluctance to Kill is also off imo. the reason being that, military personel aside, most people cannot bring themselves to end the life of another. it is a huge psychological hurdle that many cannot, or will not jump. even those people who think they can do it will occasionally find themselves "locking up" when the actual moment to kill is at hand. as such, I believe that most people would have the limitation of some sort of CAK. whether you call is reluctance to kill or whatever it is still basically a level of CAK.

another thing that makes me believe that a majority of people have some sort of CAK is that the use of the Death Penalty would be a heck of a lot more frequent than it is currently. while the legal system is partially to blame this is in turn due to the staunch opposition of it use to begin with.

police and military personel are a different breed for the most part. they tend to be people who have a certain level of "detachment". I could see them not having it but that would be really stretching it especially since not everyone can accurately state what they would or would not do in any life threatening situation...

end result...Joe Schmoe on the street would have some level of CAK, while a military or officer of the law would also, if at a lower level. Joe Scmoe I would put at around 15 while those in uniform would wander between 5 and 15 pts dependant on their actual training and actual position in the uniform service that they have joined.

[Killer Shrike]

OK, philosophical arguments and amateur psychology aside, how is a CvK Disadvantageous to Joe Schmoe? If its not Disadvantageous, its not worth any points in the HERO System -- its just flavor.


Further, if you expect all non-villains to have it, then whats the point of expressing it in points at all? If you are mandating it, then ts freebie Disad points.

[white peregrine]

so the idea is that 'normal' people will kill, however reluctantly while heroes won't due to some higher moral standing?

this is even further mucked up when we are attempting to have a hero be a 'normal person' facing off against those with more power.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by white peregrine
so the idea is that 'normal' people will kill, however reluctantly while heroes won't due to some higher moral standing?

this is even further mucked up when we are attempting to have a hero be a 'normal person' facing off against those with more power. No, the idea is that a Disadvantage that does not in some way cause difficulties to the Disadvantaged individual is explicitly WORTH ZERO POINTS. Thats the driving tenant of Disadvantages.

Is it Disadvantageous if I am Susceptible to Kryptonite in a universe where Kryptonite DOES NOT EXIST? No.

Is it Disadvantageous if I am Hunted by Goblins, in a hi-tech campaign where Goblins DONT EXIST? No.

Those are obvious, but how about these:

Is it Disadvantageous if I have a Romantic and Professional Rivalry with Brad Pitt, but Im not a movie star or famous person, or ever likely to encounter him or Jennifer A.? No. -- Maybe worth a PsyLim but not worth a Rivalry.

Is it Disadvantageous if I believe the world is flat if Im not a sailor and live in a pre-Columbus era setting or equivalent? No. What difference does it make? The powers that be agree with me. They stone people that say otherwise in some parts of the world.

Is it Disadvantageous if I have Veangeful when Family is Harmed/Killed if Im an orphan with no surviving family? No.

Is it Disadvantageous to be Wanted by the Authorities in Tokyo if it is extremely unlikely that during the course of the campaign Ill ever go there? If Im an instantaneous long-range teleporter? If I have the ability to completely change my appearance via 0 END Cellular Shapechange? No.

and

Is it Disadvantageous to have a Code vs Killing in a society where that is the norm, killing people is punishable by law, incarceration, and social exclusion, and further I am an accountant or similar that will almost certainly never be in a position to kill anyone or be put on the spot to make a die/live decision for anyone? NO. Its just flavor.