Over The Line?

[CrosshairCollie]

This is something that's come up a couple of times in games I've been in, and I'm curious what other people do. Moreso than in other games, Champions games have 'lines' ... standards of moral/ethical behavior that characters are expected to not cross. The most obvious one is the 'No Killing, CVK or not' line.

I'm wondering what you guys do when someone crosses that line. Do you simply stop them, saying as I did once, 'No, that's not kosher' and deny them the action, or do you let them go through with it and get in In-Character (IC) trouble? I'm torn between letting the PCs have free will with their characters, and knowing that someone could take my NPCs reactions to their line-crossing action as being 'vindictive' or 'singling them out'.

The people I play with know my tendencies. If one were to apply an era tag to my Champions games, it would be Silver Age. They should all know this by now, and yet, there are still ... issues. How do you think I should handle it? Refuse to let the action occur, or let them deal with the consequences of being 'in-character', even though they may take it as being 'out-of-character'?

[Mightybec]

Personally, I'd let the event happen, then make the PC suffer the consequences. I was DMing D&D game many moons ago, and a PC played by a guy that was a little crazy, and decided to kill a priest in the town. He had an evil amulet that caused a crack to open up and swallow whomever is over it. To make a long story short, the priest was swallowed by the broken earth, and his temple crumbled in after him. After he recovered from rolling on the floor laughing, his PC was then slaughtered by his companions, and then the body urinated upon. Needless to say, he never did that again.

Mightybec

[death tribble]

Sometimes we tried to stop the person going through with the action. Other times they went through with it and got hammered in game as a result.

The Avenger murdered the Cobra in our campaign and was expelled from the team with some of them hunting him. It should be noted he was on his own when he killed the Cobra.

[schir1964]

I'd make sure the Player understood that they were about to break thier Psych Lim and that there would be consequences for the Character.

If they are a good roleplayer, then they will usually have thier Character show the proper mental problems for breaking thier own code.

If they are good enough then they may keep thier Psych Lim without much consequence imposed from me.

If they aren't good roleplayers or want to get rid of the Psych Lim, then they suffer the consequences.

Consequences:
Player - Psych Lim eliminated. All experience points are used to pay off the Pysch Lim. No other expenditure may occur until the Pysch Lim is paid off and no points can be set aside for later.

Character - Villians that know about the action will now change tactics concerning character. General populace opinion might change towards the character. How much reaction depends on the attitude of the Character when the Psych Lim was broken.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Monolith]

If the character is intentionally trying to kill someone in a "no kill" game, then I make the player aware of the consequences before he does the actual act. Then if he kills the character I take appropriate actions within the game to make sure the character suffers for his act. This can lead to expelling the character from the game and having him hunted. If the killing was an accident, then I just have the character suffer through some minor consequences ("You killed my mommy! You're not a good man," while being said in front of a live news camera, ect).

I generally don't want to come down on players too hard though. Many players enjoy playing the Wolverine types; and Wolverine did plenty of killing in the early days of the X-Men when no one was looking. I think a lot of Champions gamers draw their comic book influences from the late 70's and early to mid 80's.

[Blue]

Experience points are the best means of showing your displeasure. Same way you might give extra XP for good RP performance, you might penalize someone for taking their character in a way inconsistent with his supposed design.

As the book sayeth: A disadvantage that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any points!

Therefore, I've warned players that if they do not reasonably adhere to the disadvantages they take then they will see an experience embargo. Until that disad is bought off. Means the rest of the team is improving and getting better while you're only paying off something you shouldn't have taken in the first place if you weren't going to play it.

If it's only a minor infraction I can overlook it. If it's notable, then they might get one less XP than the rest. That scale climbs as they do things outside the bounds of their character.

So technically, they have the free will to do what they want, but there is a price.

[Ben Seeman]

We had a guy run his sword through a villain who was already down and out. Those of us on the team with Code vs. killing all gasped in horror. Of course, as players we thought (for the most part) that it was a riot.

Darren tends to follow some of the "rules" from the Munchkin Master's Guide and before any of us do something REALLY stupid he asks, "Really?"

[Blue]

My current group of players gearing up for the new campaign, are notorious for playing characters at odds with one another in other games (Vampire, D&D... poker, backgammon...). Should make for an interesting game.

---------
OT, I like the Jack Handy quote. I used to use "I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula AND Superman away.".

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Monolith
I generally don't want to come down on players too hard though. Many players enjoy playing the Wolverine types; and Wolverine did plenty of killing in the early days of the X-Men when no one was looking.

How many Wolverines can be on a team? If it's the majority then you're not really playing a mainstream superhero game any more.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
How many Wolverines can be on a team? If it's the majority then you're not really playing a mainstream superhero game any more.

Well... maybe. The Authority is a mainstream comic.
As is the Ultimates, Planetary, WildC.A.T.s. My point is this; comics have changed considerably since the 80s. Sure, Nightwing and Batman still cling to their Code vs. Killing... but there are others in their universe who do not (there was Hitman, after all).

In RDU Neil's game, there are groups that really try not to kill. Then there are some Black Ops groups who are born killers. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are fighting for "Hearts and Minds" of the populace, like the NYC Mavericks, in the face of a Paranormal Registration Act.... a reluctance to kill is a very good thing. It garners the good will of New Yorkers and they have really shielded the Mavericks from the worst of the Federal PRA machinations.

If you are trying to stop Eurostar from denotating 11 nuclear devices under 11 European cities... that's balls to wall time. (we killed Bora, Le Sone and almost killed Durak in that campaign, Estar killed Tower, a PC). You don't have time for niceties. No body in Europe was hunting down the PCs after it either. They came to understand the stakes all too well. Millions of lives vs. 2 or 3 villains.... the math is just too stark to do otherwise.

Now, I don't usually build character with a Code vs. Killing. As a player, I'm reluctant to kill as a general rule. But if the stakes are high enough, I will go for the jugular. Also, death happens in combat. I've criticaled against a minor villain and *poof*, dey dead! But there are consequences for killing, even accidental. Although I do have an ex-assassin who has a code vs. killing because his entire reason for being a Hero is one of redemption.

Neils world is gritty, even with some real superpowerhouses in it. It looks more like Planetary and Authority than the Teen Titans of the Wolfman-Perez era. But I also notice a direct correlation between the more desperate the PC is, the more likely he is to kill. My 500 pt character has lots of combat options now, he is tougher now. He can take a few hits in order to manuever the bad guy in taking the bad guy down as safe and surgical as possible.

[Arthur]

This reminds me of the story "The Death of Jean DeWolff" in PP, Spider-man. It's available in graphic novel format. Spider-man starts pounding on the villain of the piece (a psychotic killer who almost killed Betty Brant), and Daredevil has to intervene before Spidey kills the guy.

Now, Spidey is about as "good-guy" as they come. However, the writer noted that he wanted to show how once you are in a fight, the adrenaline starts pumping, and you can't just "turn it off". That's one reason I stay out of fights so assiduously - I've taken a lot of martial arts, and even in my current sad physical state, I'm afraid I might kill someone. Not because I am a bad-ass (far from it!), but because I am NOT. I think I would panic and go for the throat.

I remember going to what I think is the last Steven Seagal movie ("Exit Wounds"). There's two hours of my life I'll never have back. It was pathetic. When he meets his guest star (DMX?), they start out beating the shit out of each other, then just stop for no discernible reason and start hanging out. Even by Hollyweed action movie standards, that was pretty pathetic (see my sig).

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn
Well... maybe. The Authority is a mainstream comic.

And that is a truly uncomfortable thought.


But I am very much a heroes should be heroic, bright and better than us approach. I don't want dark realism in my games, or my comics. Once the spandex goes on the killing goes off. I generally tell new players (as a way to describe the tone of my games) "If Superman or Captain America wouldn't tolerate your character as a teammate, better get ready to rebuild"


That being said, in my 10 year running champs game, I introduced PSI for the express purpose of the darker characters of the hero group having someone to kill off- It was the only time the PCs killed. I build up a rivalry and a hatred between them for 2 or 3 years (in small bits and pieces) then had PSI do something really vile that pushed all of their pychlim buttons and let em loose. Omen did his thing, Mind Slayer and Psimon were killed and Inquisitor was a vegatable.

[Storn]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
And that is a truly uncomfortable thought.


But I am very much a heroes should be heroic, bright and better than us approach. I don't want dark realism in my games, or my comics. Once the spandex goes on the killing goes off.

I guess I like to challenge this about super-heroes. Sure, I understand the better and brighter statement.... and certainly you should run/play games that you want to. Something about superheroes hearkens to a nostaliga of the Silver and Golden ages.

But Heroes are Heroes. So many great Heroes have killed... and I'm not talking about comic book superheroes anymore... but anyone who can be defined as a hero. What allows James Bond, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, to kill, or the Shadow (or even Batman in his early beginnings)... and still be heroes, but if you put spandex on... you can't be a hero anymore if you kill?

Is it never heroic to kill? Then you've just excluded 80% of the RPG games out there. Fantasy, sci-fi, horror, death comes often and easily.

My Super Hero characters have killed by accident, on purpose and once, not even under my control... in a super hero game. In fact, last time I played, I think Geist was responsible for 20,000 deaths. All unknown to him. And for very good, in-character reasons for doing this ("he's doing it wrong!" <g>)
Rising above that, trying to come to grips with death and killing and being a demigod on earth... that has been the most heroic role-playing I've ever done.

So, yes, I challenge the idea of that spandex, this visual uniform, differentiates this Hero from all other Heroes. A challenge that is being tackled in comics today. I agree, the Authority is an enormous extreme. But on some level I ask myself, if Batman would just snap Joker's neck, then all that death... all that destruction could be avoided. Joker has the superhuman ability to waltz out of jail. Proven over and over again. Makes for great drama, I admit. But when I think about all the innocent lives that the Joker has taken over the years... I'm sorry, my PC has got the bastard down... I'm taking his ass out with extreme predjudice.

Now, one of the things Neil has done in his game is: a criminal goes to jail, he's gone. No one gets out of Stronghold (or Until's Deep). It has only happened a couple of times. But the majority of criminals busted... stay busted. Now, in this environment, yes... it makes sense to pull the punches, get the bastards thru legal system and put them away instead of capping them.

Not easy questions, nor are there any "real" answers that will satisfy all of us. But I still think good questions to ask.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn


But Heroes are Heroes. So many great Heroes have killed... and I'm not talking about comic book superheroes anymore... but anyone who can be defined as a hero. What allows James Bond, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, to kill, or the Shadow (or even Batman in his early beginnings)... and still be heroes, but if you put spandex on... you can't be a hero anymore if you kill?

Not easy questions, nor are there any "real" answers that will satisfy all of us. But I still think good questions to ask.

And I can see that, and to a certain extent I agree with that. I think that books & games that address that issue are important. I just don't want them to be "mainstream".

As to the comment about being a hero- this is my take on it. The spandex doesn't mean hero- it means super-hero; ie over and above a hero. A superhero should be holding himself to a higher standard than a hero. Bond can kill, he has too. Thats his job, but superhero is supposed to be super(ior) to that, have the power to defeat without killing, to not cross that line.

I guess what irks me about that whole approach (the heroes are just like us with powers) is that I don't want the superhero to be just like us, with powers. In addition have powers at a higher level than normal, thier morality, thier ethics, the essence of who they are should also be higher than normal. When you get the powers without the rest, it just seems wrong to me. Doing it otherwise makes for a great thought experiment, or moral issues that are dealt with in a few comics, but again I don't want to see it "mainstream".

The "we don't have to kill" attitude is part of what seperates superheroes from the rest. If they use the approach and methods of "lesser" heros, why bother reading comics. Just watch a die hard movie or a bond movie (both of which I love) instead. Otherwise it is just a modern action setting with the bells and whistles of superpowers.

It is also about setting and I mention the spandex as a clue to this. I love the Crossgen stuff. Sigil - Sam Rey has superpowers, however he is in a SF setting, and at war. He kills. This doesn't bother me. Why - It's not superheroes- It's SF with superpowers. And I think that is what I am looking at - A superhero setting is vastly different that a setting with superpowers, a much more black and white one, much more mythic.

Needless to say, I have always prefered DC to Marvel, Cyclops to Wolverine, Modern Batman to the Punisher.

BTW Storn, it is great to be discussing this and not arguing it. :-)

[Checkmate]

While you are correct in early Batman comics people died, it wasn't as a direct result of what Batman did. I mean Batman didn't stick knives in any vital organs. It was usually the criminal was running away and fell off a building, got hit by a car, told his buddies he was responsible for creating Batman and said buddies beat him to death. Batman wasn't a killer, people just happened to die when he was after them.

Typically when I run a Champions game, I have the same philosphy: If Captain America wouldn't like you, re-write. I am just so sick of the "It's cool to be a rebel" character personalities out there, but that's me.