Not Role Playing Disadvantages.

[Demonsong]

Hello all,

It every ones favorite Demon….err, um, I mean GM with another question for all you other GM’s out there. How do you handle characters not role playing there Disadvantages. I have an example:

A character with Code vs. Killing. Holding an agent (that surrendered) still so another party member could shoot him in the head. He defended his actions by saying that his code against killing was personal and did not count because he did not kill the poor SOB the other guy did. No, this really happened!!!

Well what do you think?

As a side note my campaign is generally not that insane but these two players are loose cannons.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Demonsong
Hello all,

It every ones favorite Demon….err, um, I mean GM with another question for all you other GM’s out there. How do you handle characters not role playing there Disadvantages. I have an example:

A character with Code vs. Killing. Holding an agent (that surrendered) still so another party member could shoot him in the head. He defended his actions by saying that his code against killing was personal and did not count because he did not kill the poor SOB the other guy did. No, this really happened!!!

Well what do you think?

As a side note my campaign is generally not that insane but these two players are loose cannons.

Unluck is a wonderful tool for balancing this. If players don't role play their disadvantages, give them a number of dice of unluck equal to the points they received for the disad, since obviously the disad isn't limiting them. I'd give the guy 4D6 Unluck until he improves his attitude. The Karmic balance must be kept. ;)

[JohnOSpencer]

Originally posted by Gary
Unluck is a wonderful tool for balancing this. If players don't role play their disadvantages, give them a number of dice of unluck equal to the points they received for the disad, since obviously the disad isn't limiting them. I'd give the guy 4D6 Unluck until he improves his attitude. The Karmic balance must be kept. ;)

I like this solution. I'll have to use it with one of my players who "Won't hit a woman" and always seems to be targeting women first. He claims he just forgets, but I can only remind him so many times. I think this is relatively fair. Good idea Gary!

John Spencer

[Hitchhiker]

Heh, the memories...

We had a character in one campaign who would "never tell a lie". The tricky part was that he had also a secret identity - he never wanted to talk about it.

So regularly, he returned from some dark corner and one of us asked him what he had been doing there...

Us: Hey, you're back! Where have you been?
Him: Err...from a back-alley.
Us: What have you been doing there? (grin)
Him: I won't tell you anything about this.
Us: Aw, come on! We've seen your contact!
Him: Goddammit, I won't tell you ANYTHING!

Man, that was fun. He got angry so easily.

And yeah, I like your solution too.

[Patriot]

Have him pick up a hunted
he has just become an accessory to a crime, And the opponent was seriously under powered, and not fighting, so he does not have self defense as a cop-out option
The fbi, local law enforcment, PRIMUS, or depending on location UNTIL roll down on his murderous arse, ansd he may think about it again , then his whole team gets under the scrutiny of those orginizations

[Talon]

To be fair, some types of CVK are personal. You could ask the player to clarify the disad, running through a few test cases, then make sure it's appropriate priced. Also use this opportunity to explore the reasoning behind the disad, to assure yourself that it makes sense.

A "I will never, ever kill someone myself, but I have no problem asking someone else to do it for me" CVK is probably not worth more than 5 points unless the character is somehow inherently lethal.

[Nightshade]

I'd put him in a life and death situation where he has no choice but to roleplay the code vs. killing. For example, have a DNPC be held hostage by a homicidal lunatic who just might have to be killed to prevent killing the dNPC. You could also amplify one of his other disads, like turning a watched into a full Hunted, increase the frequency of a vulnerability or susceptability, etc.

You could also state that if he isn't going to roleplay his disads that you aren't interested in having him in your game... That's always a last resort, IMO, but sometimes you have to take a stand.

Nightshade

[Vondy]

First - Code Versus Killing comes in many sizes and flavors. It sounds like his is the 5-10 point variety, not the full on 20. If this is the case it should be repriced and the player should be asked to make up the points by either 1) taking an additional disad, or 2) sacrificing experience until its paid off (like an interest free loan).

Second - On the rare occasions I've had to deal with this I've told the player they can play their disadvantages or I will remove it AND THE POINTS THEY GOT FOR IT from their character sheet, requiring them to pare their character down.

Its seemed to... motivate them.

[Kristopher]

A "Code vs Killing" that allows a character to hold a victim in place so that the character's teammate can kill him isn't worth any points at all.

The character can take the Disad "Prone to Moral Weaseling and Lawyer-like Thought Processes," however. Or maybe that's the character.

[Chris Goodwin]

He obviously didn't think he wasn't playing out of character. That sounds like something of a separate issue from someone taking points for a disad and deliberately not roleplaying it. I have no idea what you can do about that except in-game consequences. He held the guy so someone else could kill him, he goes up the river for murder.

[Killer Shrike]

I believe that is called "ACCESSORY TO MURDER". He can explain his line of reasoning in front of a Jury of his peers. I dont think "Reasonable Doubt" would apply....

[zornwil]

I think the best thing is to mutate the disadvantage appropriately. Perhaps he gets a reputation or perhaps, if he does this again, he starts to develop an "instrument of death" disad. This can't/shouldn't be against his will - you should discuss a bit how his character feels/acts, or make a judgement and then present him with your idea on how the disad really works/what it is.

I ran a game where a character went from a CVK to being veangeful (not murderous) because he couldn't control his own anger at some villains' murderous actions on him and would launch attacks that were either deadly or in support of others' deadly attacks. The player didn't think about it, he just reacted. So I explained to him here's how I wanted his character to "grow" - or he could buy off the disad. It was more interesting for him to have the retribution disad and he played it that way.

[Fur Face]

As far as CVK, that is something that really needs to be defined before the campaign begins, because although we all like to think we know what it means, these boards are proof that it means different things to different people, based upon their backgrounds and beliefs. Even then, when playing an RPG people tend to want to do things they would never consider doing in real life, so everything must be qualified.

I agree with all of the solutions presented, I suppose the severity depends upon how the GM views the players actions (or lack of them). Personally, unless the GM would tell me it would be a campaign requirement, I wouldn't take CVK, because sometimes lethal force is all you've got left to stop someone. Heck, even though old Seeker didn't have resisitent DEF, he also didn't have CVK.

[Demonsong]

The world that the game is taking place in is some what different than the normal champion’s world. Think Shadow Run or Rifts, in a run down, free for all, part of a Mega City where government cops and corporation security just don’t go. It’s the bad lands of the city, a modern DMZ, where if you have the power or guns you can get away with murder and no one is going to call the police because there are no police to call.

I do like the unluck thing; it is defiantly worth thinking about.

And as I right this, maybe a there is a team of vigilantes types that might be noticing the groups activities….hummm.

Demonsong

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Demonsong
The world that the game is taking place in is some what different than the normal champion’s world. Think Shadow Run or Rifts, in a run down, free for all, part of a Mega City where government cops and corporation security just don’t go. It’s the bad lands of the city, a modern DMZ, where if you have the power or guns you can get away with murder and no one is going to call the police because there are no police to call.

I do like the unluck thing; it is defiantly worth thinking about.

And as I right this, maybe a there is a team of vigilantes types that might be noticing the groups activities….hummm.

Demonsong A code vs killing in such a game is a significant disadvantage because it is assumed that people will kill. As I noted in the lengthy CvK debate that took place a few weeks ago, IMO Code vs Killing is mostly a 4 color concept which isnt really restrictive in a classic silver age style campaign because it is assumed that people arent going to kill. Conversely in campaigns where killing is commonplace, like Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Post Apoc, Space War, etc it can really hamper a character and thus is Disadvantageous.

If a player takes it and tries to weasle around it, bump into down to Common Moderate or Uncommon Strong to show its not very binding. If the player cant even roleplay a mild conviction (regularly kills or uses indiscriminant force), just transmute it into a different disadvantage as the character becomes more hardened to killing. You might even transmute it directly into Casual Killer. They once (supposedly) had scruples, but once they started killing they lost all respect for life and do it without hesitation thereafter.

[Killer Shrike]

As an addendum to the above -- if they take Casual Killer, then that has to be Disadvantageous for the setting as well. In some really gritty campaigns, Casual Killer is no more disadvantageous than Code vs Killing is in 4 Color Silver Age Comic Code-esque games. If Casual Killer has no downside in the campaign its not worth a Dis. In that case a bad Rep (Savage Killer) might be more appropriate -- people dont want to be around him. A positive Rep (No one to be trifled with) or PRE only to cause Fear is a good corrolary to this as well to reflect the benefits of scaring the bezesus out of everyone.

[tesuji]

Ok first off, the player has shown you in play the scope of his disad. Take that at its face value.

Now, revisit the disad and how it was priced, specifically the FREQUENCY. With this new definition it seems to me to definitely fit into rare or uncommon and not common. if you gave him common or he took common, exmplain your misunderstanding and adjust the points. Give him a chance between games to refigure the points.

Then, when it does come up in game, its no longer a roleplaying issue. if he decides to act against the CVK, you tell him to make an ego roll as defined in the lim. Psych lim is a lim because when the character decides to go against it he runs into a case of maybe he can, maybe he cannot based on a die roll. The drawback is loss of control of your character's actions.

Get the scope defined, which has apparently now happened, assign proper value and simply enforce the game mechanics described in the trait.

For my money, I would have made him make an ego roll at the time with DC based on the strength of the lim, if he made it fine, if not then i run his character for a few phases until thelife and death threat was over.

Then, after the session, we discuss this issue and if his view of the disad disagrees with the points he took, I give him the opportunity to revalue the disad.

These issues are always going to occur at various times when the loan sharking chargen pays you points ahead of time for problems that might come up later. So you just need to handle them consistently and smoothly IN PLAY TIME and get the "after the speedbump" discussion and solution stalled until later on after PLAY TIME so it doesn't disrupt the game.

[Killer Shrike]

Here is a link to a recent thread on this subject:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4942&perpage=20&highlight=Code%20vs%20Killing&pagenumber=2

[Farkling]

I personally favor the Unluck solution as a temporary patch, and I advise having th echaracter give you a list of situations he would and wouldn;t kill in. Bushido or Old West Codes against Killing still allowed the murder of certain types of people... (hmm....as did Nazi Codes vs Killing....:) )

I also am a GM who feels free to let Disads migrate as the character changes and grows. If ArmorGuy starts researching how to adjust his defense against magnetic assaults by incorporating non-ferrous materials in his armor, I am perfectly willing to switch the Magnetics Vulnerability to something more apporpriate, perhaps a Sus to Heat or Physical Blows.

Now, for the EVIL application. Does the dead fellow have any surviving relatives ?? (and sometimes, female realtives are preferred in this case) With the MegaCorp description you supplied, I have a couple campaign ideas for you here.

1) Classic Comix Cliche #217:: Stolen power armor or experimental weapons used to capture or kill the murderers.
"I'm going to show you as much mercy as you showed my poor dead husband!" FRZZZP!!

2) Robocop. Judge Dredd. Or other formidable 20-30 pt hunters. (8-, limited by geography)

3) Reputation "Distrusted by the man on the street"
"Didja hear??? They killed my fixer's brother in law...he declared 'em persona non-grata"

4) The cops. Have them get into the life of the character with a fine tooth comb.

5) The spouse/relative variant also works with designed and activated killing machines or biogenetically engineered viruses (tagged to the DNA code of our perpetrators?). The necessary sample materials could be collected from any scene the heroes appeared at...or any hospital they were attended at.

6) Anything else dramatically appropriate. Hell, a telepath reading his mind would declare him guilty of accessory to murder based on your description. Think of the Disadvantages as guidelines...not rules of stone. :)

[Blue]

My players are exceptional at roleplaying their disadvantages. In fact sometimes it works to the detriment of the adventure because one guy or another refuses to participate in the scenario because it would work counter to his personality!

Incidentally, I've gotten around the problem of Heroes roleplaying themselves OUT of a scenario by allowing them to have multiple team members, but only one can participate in any given scenario (The others presumably off fighting crime elsewhere).

Player 1: "Technophobe refuses to get into the rocket ship. He goes back to his hideyhole and makes paper dolls or something. Scissors aren't too technological, are they?"
GM: "No. I think he can handle scissors. Ok, that's fine. It's about then that your other character, Jet-Guy finishes his other duties and shows up for action. He likes rockets, doesn't he?"
Player 1: "Does he ever! But I'll need to roll for his claustraphobia..."

[RadeFox]

Call me old fashioned, and while I love some of the in-game mechanics to handle this, what about Talking to the Player??

He made the character, chose the Disad's. This is sorta a contract with the GM, and if he ain't playing it right/fiddling with the letter of the disad over the spirit, then he's not playing the character YOU as the GM allowed him to play. Have him sit out a session if he don't get the idea, with the IN game story being legal troubles or jail time for his acts. Though, the ones who DID the killing while he held the poor sap, would also have to indicted. Hell, run em both through the legal system. In most worlds, heros are not given a license to kill, even if they are backed by the authorites.

[Mentor]

How about replacing with new Disad the old Disad the player refuses to adhere to. If he ignores Code vs. Killing, the he picks up Psych. Lim: Hesitates to Attack or Psych Lim: Berserk and you the GM roll the dice and enforce the result. A few game of getting cold cocked because he lost an attack phase or beating up the bystander, and the recalcitrant player might elect to play the Code vs Killing properly.

Our games players are excellent roleplayers and so self policing when it comes to adherence to character concept that we never seem to run into these kinds of abuses. Our game is an "invitational", so the rogues we have gamed with previously don't get invited to the Europa 2000 campaign.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by RadeFox
Call me old fashioned, and while I love some of the in-game mechanics to handle this, what about Talking to the Player??

He made the character, chose the Disad's. This is sorta a contract with the GM, and if he ain't playing it right/fiddling with the letter of the disad over the spirit, then he's not playing the character YOU as the GM allowed him to play. Have him sit out a session if he don'y get the idea, with the IN game story being legal troubles or jail time for his acts. Though, the ones who DID the killing while he held the poor sap, would also have to indicted. Hell, run em both through the legal system. In most worlds, heros are not given a license to kill, even if they are backed by the authorites. Yeah, let them face the real world consequences.

[Agent X]

I like D-Man's approach. I don't care if this guy earnestly thought CVK worked this way. Bottom Line: That version of CVK has got to go. Player needs to choose new disads to keep his points or toss out those points he received from the CVK. Simple, dramatic, convincing.

[RadeFox]

IMO< Simply forcing a rewrite of the character mid-storyline is the poorest choice. It will smash a lot of suspension of disbelief for the players, and ruin a lot of continuity in the chronicle.

Granted, a change may be in order, but PLAY the change out. Arrest the killer and his 'innocent' accomplice. Put 'em on trial, give 'em a sentence of 'enforced' community service (new disad to replace the defunct CVK!), complete with a tether if need be. The looks on the errant players face would be priceless, when he realizes the consequences of his (in)actions!
:eek:

[Agent X]

Originally posted by RadeFox
IMO< Simply forcing a rewrite of the character mid-storyline is the poorest choice. It will smash a lot of suspension of disbelief for the players, and ruin a lot of continuity in the chronicle.

Granted, a change may be in order, but PLAY the change out. Arrest the killer and his 'innocent' accomplice. Put 'em on trial, give 'em a sentence of 'enforced' community service (new disad to replace the defunct CVK!), complete with a tether if need be. The looks on the errant players face would be priceless, when he realizes the consequences of his (in)actions!
:eek: Nobody said mid-storlyine. That's when the unluck or... nothing... happens. Consequences are going to happen whether the character is played according to their psych lims or not.

[Blue Jogger]

On the other side of Code vs. Killing...

Madman, known for killing superheroes, excapes once again from jail to kill the latest batch of superheroes.

A bloody battle ensues, one of the heroes nearly dies and sees the spirits of the fallen tell him, "You can give up now and rest in peace or you can get up and Fight for Freedom." Of course, being a hero, he chooses to return to battle.

Now the battle is over. The hero is now dead tired. (pun intended) Assuming he can catch Madman, what is the hero with 20 points of Code vs. Killing suppose to do?

[RadeFox]

Code vs Killing does not mean a character CANNOT kill. It just means that he is inherently driven NOT too. But in some situations, perceptions and long held tenets waver, as above. The Hero may choose to end the reign of Madman's terror. And he would be justified in doing so.
Then the player has to deal with his own internal demons over the act. Perhaps he has nightmares, or he becomes edgy and irratible, projecting his anger at himself for a moment of weakness/determination outward at those near him.
He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling. Whatever the case, the death will affect him for some time, till he can come to grips with it and move on.

[AnotherSkip]

I woulda Had the "head shot" miss the target and hit him........

[Hugh Neilson]

Getting beyond the CVK itself, there are really two issues here.

First, were the player and the GM on the same page about what this disad means? I find some players, most commonly inexperienced players or players not looking to role play, pick disad's frim the sidebar. "Code vs Killing - 20 points - OK, 130 points to go" I always try to sit players down and say, "OK, based on this disad, here's where I think the character is coming from" A 20 point C vs K is Superman/Batman - "no way; killing is always wrong; even if he's killed millions, it would be wrong for him to die for it" The player may say "OK, I don;t see it that strong, here's what I see" and we re-tally the points accordingly. Maybe the charcater really has "Believes criminals deserve to die". He won't pull the trigger himself, but would lobby for the death penalty in many cases. Maybe he would pull the trigger himself.

When it turns out we weren't on the same page, I attribute that to failure to communicate - at least as much my fault as the player's. So we discuss it, and the player should probably revise the character to reduce or remove the C vs K and add a more appropriate disadvantage.

Second, is it a player who just doesn't care? Disad's are only there to build up the character. "I'd never have taken a flaw if I thought the GM was going to EXPLOIT it!". Some care about the game, just not the RP. Just wants as much power as he can grab and sees the game as an exercise in tactics, for example. ANSER: See p 346 f 5e - the character roleplays poorly (never remembers his disad's, for example) so -1 xp. Note that he's not growing as fast as his teammates (assuming they role play better) so, to meet his goal of upping his power, he'll probably try to play his disad's.

If he just doesn't care about the game, maybe he should be asked to leave, but that's extreme. How many people build a Champions character if they don't actually care to play the game?

BACK TO THE SPECIFICS

My first thought here is "some hero!". Maybe when the whole group is Hunted by law enforcement for numerous legitimate reasons, we're not "Champions" any more. Sounds like the two players noted are up for membership in the Knights of the Dinner Table.

In game consequences such as disad mutation has been discussed by lots of other posters. One thing hasn't, however. What about the other players? Have they had anything to say about their teammates' actions? Do any of them have codes vs killing (likely yes if this is a 4 colour game!). Are they just standing idly by?

Too often, players, even good players, will say "well, he's a PC so we have to put up with his behaviour". 25 points of "Believes PC's can do whatever they feel like"? Paid for "Detect Player Characters"? "DIstinctive Features - "PC" tattooed on forehead? The characters don't know who a PC is - would they but up with that behaviour from an NPC, or would they bring him in? Maybe you've just found a new nemesis for your other player characters, and a nice new Hunted for the Killers.

[Vondy]

I would just make sure that the GM and the player are on the same page in regards to the disad.

If the player refuses to get on the same page tell them to select a different disadvantage or LOSE THE POINTS.

If that doesn't work... I say go Evil Emperor on them:

"Wipe them out... all of them."

[Blue Jogger]

Originally posted by RadeFox
He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling.

Don't most superheroes need that?

[Blue Jogger]

Originally posted by RadeFox
He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling.

Don't most superheroes need that?

[PerennialRook]

Ouch... 4d6 unluck... aren't I glad I made another character.

Yes, I was the player who held the captive prone to be killed. My bad.

In my defence this was my first time ever playing with the HERO system. First session, first encounter, first character.

Now that I actually have FRED I understand what actually happened. I was wrong. From what I had understood, CvK meant that I would not kill someone. I also didn't yet understand pulling a punch, and ended up killing several other gang members on accident.

Suffice to say, my new character doesn't have a CvK.

-Preston

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by PerennialRook
Ouch... 4d6 unluck... aren't I glad I made another character.

Yes, I was the player who held the captive prone to be killed. My bad.

In my defence this was my first time ever playing with the HERO system. First session, first encounter, first character.

Now that I actually have FRED I understand what actually happened. I was wrong. From what I had understood, CvK meant that I would not kill someone. I also didn't yet understand pulling a punch, and ended up killing several other gang members on accident.

Suffice to say, my new character doesn't have a CvK.

-Preston
I never liked CvK, but then I always preferred Dark Champions, sci-fi or modern gritty settings over classic comic style.

My first character was a DnD paladin I converted. He wound up with the GM putting a casual killer and Reputation on him... In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

[CourtFool]

Originally posted by Beowulf
In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

"Frailty" anyone?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Beowulf
In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

I had an NPC a long time ago (in fact I think I should revive him) who was this dual-personality liberal defense attorney in one guise (yeah, cliche, I know) and in his other personality was the Grim Reaper, a deadly assassin of the evil. He had this amulet that would glow on a 14/less for bad guys. If it glowed, he chopped them with a massive supernatural killing attack, otherwise he could only do slight damage. If it glowed, furthermore, he was COMPELLED to kill, whereas if it did not he was compelled NOT to kill.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil
I had an NPC a long time ago (in fact I think I should revive him) who was this dual-personality liberal defense attorney in one guise (yeah, cliche, I know) and in his other personality was the Grim Reaper, a deadly assassin of the evil. He had this amulet that would glow on a 14/less for bad guys. If it glowed, he chopped them with a massive supernatural killing attack, otherwise he could only do slight damage. If it glowed, furthermore, he was COMPELLED to kill, whereas if it did not he was compelled NOT to kill.

Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

[Talon]

Originally posted by CourtFool
"Frailty" anyone?

Then it would be "destroyed", not killed. :)

Perennial, glad to see your post. That it was your first Hero game and character makes a world of difference. Many experienced players try to pull off your honest mistake as a metagaming "tactic". Good luck with your new character!

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

And it's REALLY a limit if it means the victim must FEEL guilty, which many psycho-super-criminals will not.

[Kristopher]

That's the kind of power limitation that works in fiction, but rarely works in gaming. It often leads to endless philosophical arguements over the meaning of "guilty," and who is and is not guilty.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher
That's the kind of power limitation that works in fiction, but rarely works in gaming. It often leads to endless philosophical arguements over the meaning of "guilty," and who is and is not guilty.

I think if it were defined suitably enough to be interesting and if the player and GM agreed carefully on how it worked it wouldn't be a problem. If it's based on how the victim feels consciously and if the players and GM are mature, it shouldn't be an issue in that instance. Even based on subconscious feelings it shouldn't be a problem if maturity is present. I think it just becomes troublesome if by "guilty" you mean in the legal or moral sense regardless of the person's feelings, and then it becomes to be a sort of "counter-plot" device wherein the GM has to reveal whose actually guilty of a crime through a player's actions, and in that case I think it's very difficult to implement in an RPG.

[Kristopher]

It never occured to me that guilt might be a matter of the subjective feelings of the target.

[dbsousa]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

as a GM I would ask the player to define this very clearly, to trim the cheese from the edges...

Power only affects those who are guilty: advantage
Power only affects those who feel guilt/remorse: slight limitation.
Power can only be used with unusual sense "Sense Guilty: Targetting": reasonable limitation.
Power only affects those who have transgressed against Palasin's God: lim based on how common transgressors are...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by dbsousa
as a GM I would ask the player to define this very clearly, to trim the cheese from the edges...

Power only affects those who are guilty: advantage


Overall, I think the character gets a big benefit here, and this would be more destructive than Telepathy for mystery type scenarios. "Oh, just get all the suspects in a room and I'll slash them with my sword - it can only affect guilty people"

I'd be inclined to require the character to purchase a Detect to reflect the sword's ability to detect the "guilty/evil/what have you". If the only way to tell is to take a swing on them, there's a limitation there (Gestures for sure, at a minimum).

Even so, I think the advantages and drawbacks of the attack power only hitting those who are truly "guilty" probably balance out at best and may even carry an advantage (how often do you use your attack powers against the "innocent" - sometimes, since hero vs hero conflict is definitely a comic book standard, and even two good guys can have conflicting views; isn't it nice that they won't affect your teammates if you roll an 18 or get mind controlled)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Overall, I think the character gets a big benefit here, and this would be more destructive than Telepathy for mystery type scenarios. "Oh, just get all the suspects in a room and I'll slash them with my sword - it can only affect guilty people"


What if one of the other suspects was guilty of something else, and was on the list before the person guilty of the crime the character w/sword is actually interested in?

They end up cutting a petty thief in half, and thinking they've stopped the serial killer...

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Kristopher
What if one of the other suspects was guilty of something else, and was on the list before the person guilty of the crime the character w/sword is actually interested in?

They end up cutting a petty thief in half, and thinking they've stopped the serial killer... Well, I think that if a sword was meant to kill the guilty in this way, it would mean guilty enough to die (perhaps all those guilty of killing or torturing for utterly selfish reasons). So the sword killed a murderer, just the wrong one.

That said, the advantage would be sizable, not immense. After all, who trusts the righteousness of the sword, beyond the hero? What about its fallability? It certainly works in a pinch though.

[Gary]

If the sword was that discriminating and infallible, there's nothing to stop the vigilante from slashing every single person on Earth, or at least his city, with it. After all, it won't harm the innocent right? :rolleyes:

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Gary
If the sword was that discriminating and infallible, there's nothing to stop the vigilante from slashing every single person on Earth, or at least his city, with it. After all, it won't harm the innocent right? :rolleyes: Except when the other heroes take offense from this. I'd say quite a lot of heroes would be skeptical of the sword, regardless of how right it turns out to be. So there are plenty of hiccups to the vigilante's life.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kintara
Except when the other heroes take offense from this. I'd say quite a lot of heroes would be skeptical of the sword, regardless of how right it turns out to be. So there are plenty of hiccups to the vigilante's life.

This vigilante is already in trouble with heroes anyway. He has already killed many guilty. Adding a few dozen or hundred more to the body count won't really change anything.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Kintara
Well, I think that if a sword was meant to kill the guilty in this way, it would mean guilty enough to die (perhaps all those guilty of killing or torturing for utterly selfish reasons). So the sword killed a murderer, just the wrong one.

That said, the advantage would be sizable, not immense. After all, who trusts the righteousness of the sword, beyond the hero? What about its fallability? It certainly works in a pinch though.

And then you get the debate, about what exactly does "guilty enough to die" mean?

Take my example and replace the petty thief with another killer. The killer they're actually looking for still gets away...

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Kristopher
And then you get the debate, about what exactly does "guilty enough to die" mean?

Take my example and replace the petty thief with another killer. The killer they're actually looking for still gets away... I completely agree, which makes the power interesting, as it comes down to "according to the sword".

[itsalwayssunny]

A "Code vs Killing" that allows a character to hold a victim in place so that the character's teammate can kill him isn't worth any points at all.

The character can take the Disad "Prone to Moral Weaseling and Lawyer-like Thought Processes," however. Or maybe that's the character.

Completely agree, worth zero points. A disadvantage should only be worth points if it actually is disadvantageous to the character.

I see a lot of characters with "showoff" and "overconfident" disadvantages that should be worth zero unless showing off or being overconfident actually gets you in a pickle.

--Kap

[Folded]

Completely agree, worth zero points. A disadvantage should only be worth points if it actually is disadvantageous to the character.

I see a lot of characters with "showoff" and "overconfident" disadvantages that should be worth zero unless showing off or being overconfident actually gets you in a pickle.

--Kap

I have seen disads like that played beautifully, to the point where the character suffered a lot of difficulty that was entirely unnecessary. We even had a character in a Battletech campaign with "Gullible" as a disadvantage. Messing with him was a big part of the RP in that campaign. Lots of fun.

[gojira]

Zombie thread from beyond the grave says "bbbbrrrrrraaaaaiiiinnnnsssss!"

Seriously, wtf? You had to add a comment to a EIGHT year old thread?

[Folded]

Why not? Forum conversations are not bound by the same rules as face-to-face communication. itsalwayssunny found this to be an interesting discussion and added to it. I liked his/her comment and added to that. Isn't the point of archiving this stuff so that those who come later can see what people were talking about years ago? Why limit that to a read-only format?

[Greywind]

Normally when a thread has been dead for an extended period the usual route would be to start a new thread, possibly linking to the dead one.

[Enforcer84]

I've never seen that.
Only mentions if we can't find it. Lots of thread revival

[Tasha]

I've never seen that.
Only mentions if we can't find it. Lots of thread revival

These boards generate a ton of thread necromancy due to the feature at the bottom of this page "Similar Threads". Which only seems capable of finding threads over 6 years of age. Which leads new posters to comment on long dead threads like this one. With the new edition of the rules old discussions like this one are quite annoying as they talk about rules that are fading and definations that have changed in the new edition.

Tasha

[Lucius]

These boards generate a ton of thread necromancy due to the feature at the bottom of this page "Similar Threads". Which only seems capable of finding threads over 6 years of age. Which leads new posters to comment on long dead threads like this one. With the new edition of the rules old discussions like this one are quite annoying as they talk about rules that are fading and definations that have changed in the new edition.

Tasha

But in this case, all that's changed is that Disadvantages are called Complications.

Lucius Alexander

Still the same palindromedary

[Vondy]

It has been suggested (really) old threads be locked or archived. This has not been well received. As a result, thread necromancy is a Hero-norm.

[Arc Esu]

Unluck is a wonderful tool for balancing this. If players don't role play their disadvantages, give them a number of dice of unluck equal to the points they received for the disad, since obviously the disad isn't limiting them. I'd give the guy 4D6 Unluck until he improves his attitude. The Karmic balance must be kept. ;)

I love this idea. It makes sense in terms of game balance and points, and makes some in-universe sense as well as "karma." Plus, as a GM I love it when I get to roll for Unluck on a PC, but my players so rarely take it (possibly because they know I love rolling for it!). Repped.

[mattingly]

When a player doesn't play his character's disadvantages, I just give him some new ones. Not like he was using the old ones, anyway. He'll discover a vulnerability that he never knew he had, hit a streak of rotten luck, encounter a new enemy, gain a bad reputation, etc.

[Enforcer84]

When a player doesn't play his character's disadvantages, I just give him some new ones. Not like he was using the old ones, anyway. He'll discover a vulnerability that he never knew he had, hit a streak of rotten luck, encounter a new enemy, gain a bad reputation, etc.

I like this :)

THough I'd discuss it with player first.