Code Vs. Killing: Undead and Demons

[Brick]

I love four-colour campaigns and the associated, almost mandatory Disads going with them, among them the Code Vs. Killing Psych Lim. However, there is one point that gives me some headache: Should a Code vs. Killing also apply to undead creatures? In the comics, the heroes usually justify their full-force attacks against zombies and the like with "They're not human!" and blast them to bits. I think that's okay, what are your opinions on the subject? And where should one draw the line? Zombies and other shambling cadavers are one thing, but what about more sophisticated undead like vampires? Captain America beheaded Baron Blood in one story - would you allow this for Code Vs. Killing-Characters? And what about demons? Should the good guys pull their punches when fighting the hellish hordes of Demonicus? Your opinions, please...

[Mike W]

I think it depends on the character's definition of "human". In a world where aliens exist, this becomes more problematic. However, I think that undead...things that by definition have already died and shold be dead are easy to justify "killing". A particularly religious character might even look at it as a service(restoring peace to their souls). Demons are, in any religion/mythology that I'm aware of, defined as 1. Clearly not human and 2. Irredeemably evil. So again, most characters can freely kill a demon for the same reason you shoot a dog with rabies - it isn't human and it isn't capable of behaving in a humane way(note that I did not say human way). Now if the demon appeared to show some kind of compassion or other redeeming quality it could get more dicey...assuming it was genuine.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Depends.

 

Code versus Killing is individual to one degree or another.

 

'Killing' mindless undead is usually okay, as they really are not alive, sentient or even natural. They're killers. It's like demolishing a pit trap.

 

'Killing' demons depends on a few things. Such as: What is a demon? If they don't die, but only dissipate, then of course you can use any amount of force. If they _do_ die permanently, then they're really just evil aliens or whatever (effectively), and they could be reformed (especially if you go with 'rebel angels' - they once _were_ good...)

 

Killing sentient undead seems pretty evil to me. So does wiping the harddrive of a sentient computer. They may be bad people, but they can think, hold a conversation, and live peaceably with humanity.

 

Of course, if the vampire is one of those 'add blood and shake for INSTANT VAMPIRE', then killing is the best way of restraining them. "Okay, he's dead now. Sweep him up and put him under arrest."

 

JMO

[Lord Liaden]

I remember that Captain America/Baron Blood storyline. Cap was fighting Blood during the day, but the sun was setting, Blood's power was growing, and Cap was on the verge of losing - with Blood either killing Cap and his friends, or at least escaping to take other lives. Captain America did what had to be done, but it was shown to upset him greatly afterward.

 

Personally I'd question whether the Captain has a total Code vs. Killing - he was a soldier in wartime, after all - but it's at least the last course of action he'd choose. If he does have such a code, I'd say he made his EGO Roll in this case.

[Eyendasky80]

I think Cap makes a distinction between "war time" and "goofing off with the long john crowd." And lately, (post thawing) all he does is hang out with super heroes and he feels they are powerful and smart enough to solve problems without resorting to lethal force. Now when Cap was one of the only super heroes facing a horde of Nazi bastards, well, a couple of those fascists are gonna lose a finger or two. Or a head.

I think a CvK that included undead would be a bigger disad and worth a few more points, so in my mind it's implied that undead are fair game. Something else already killed them, right? Your just desecrating their bodies. Now if you have a code against desecrating bodies, you're in trouble. Demons are sentient, living things, however, and seem to be no different than a super villain besides their origins.

[Southern Cross]

Unless you're talking about the demons in GURPS Technomancer,which could return after being killed,at least in some circumstances.

[SomeAsianKid]

Wow, our last adventure we had a fight against DEMON and the topic came up on whether or not it was ok to kill a demon. The party unaimously voted yes, but in our genre, demons are pure evil and don't really die in our plane, they just get banished back to theirs.

[Rhen]

My character in the Champions game I currently play is a mage who has a hatred of vampires. Other than undead or demons, she refuses to kill, therefore, my GM allowed a Code vs. Killing Innocents, with the innocents in this case meaning anything that's not irredeemably evil, such as undead, demonic or the like. So vampires are okay to kill, but alien super villains aren't.

 

Just my 2 cents....

 

Rhen

[Prometheus]

The classic "Cap beheads Baron Blood" was a great finale, and as a GM I'd allow it, if played well. You could argue Cap was making a heroic sacrifice by putting aside his ideals for the greater good, and for me that falls into the Rules vs. Good Game catergory. Destroying an otherwise undying evil rather than allow its horror to live on may not get past the "Total" part of some CvKs, but it probably falls outside of "Common".

 

In any situation like this, though, I'd ask for an EGO roll and some roleplaying. "He needed killin'," would not cut the mustard.

 

It also depends on what undead and demons are like in the campaign world. Are they dead? Do they feel? What the character believes matters as much as what is true in the campaign. A mage may see a vampire as nothing more than possessed or animated flesh, but a scientist may argue that secretion/excretion, growth, and reproduction are all signs of life. The same mage might consider Lord Entropus of the Seven Hells a sentient, while the scientist may see him as nothing more than an anthropomophic representation of a natural, universal force- a fancy version of hurricane Andrew.

[Vex]

That is a very cool way of putting it Prometheus. I will probably sit down and explain it to my players. They are brand new to Champions and are having a bit of an issue with Disadvantages (20 point Code vs. Using Guns????).

[Chuckg]

Actually, the situation came up in play in our game last night.

 

I'm playing "Starguard", who is one of the most CVK characters you ever met. She doesn't kill, she doesn't use attacks that cause BODY damage, she even throws Usable By Other At Range defenses on the villains if she thinks that they're going to take too much BODY damage. (Vs. the BODY only, not the STUN -- she's idealistic, not stupid.) Basically, so long as Starguard is present, not only is she not killing anybody, but neither is anyone else, teammate or not.

 

She's also, unbeknownst to her, a Remnant (In Nomine term) archangel. Going from the description, three guesses which Archangel.

 

Last night, we're on session 3 of an other-dimensional adventure, and the DM throws a major demon at us. And (she has Sense Life Energy, Analyze) the DM tells me that to my senses the demon is "utterly foul, completely evil, absolutely without precedent in the natural order".

 

So I roll an EGO roll... and shazam, I make it. Critical success, actually.

 

And so the most pacifistic and gentle superheroine on the entire team unhesitatingly pulled out a Fiery Sword(*), and start kicking butt for the Lord -- to the extent of doing a called shot to its head with a 3d6+1 Penetrating HKA while the team brick held it in a full nelson. She set the campaign record for "Most BODY done in a single blow".

 

So despite being almost the Platonic Ideal of a CVK character, Starguard still slays demons most mightily, yea verily.

 

(And this was after her "aura of sanctity" power -- that she doesn't know she has -- inadvertently set a few vampires on fire.)

 

 

 

 

(*) VPP user -- which is why she could buy a KA.

[Rune]

Intelligent undead and many demon types should be covered by a full 20 pt. Code vs. Killing. They may be irredeemeably evil, but since they are sentient, they should be covered by the Code. Cap's justly famous battle with the Baron Blood is a case where Cap makes the vital EGO roll to do the only thing that will stop the Baron before it is too late.

 

I think, however, that a point arrives where the cthulean demon types aren't covered by the Code.

I'm referring to those things that are so removed from our plane of existence that their presence causes pain and you can't productively communicate with them. Besides being so antithetical to all existence on this plane, they just aren't sentient as we define it.

[Chuckg]

*nods*

 

I did just find a sort of "official" ruling on the question -- it's in 4e _Creatures of the Night: Horror Enemies_

 

Their demons were irredeemably evil, and anyone, even the most innocent, could cheerfully use unrestrained lethal force. They were the archetypical "Targets that even the CVK people can roll up their sleeves and just pound on".

 

Of course, they did also mention that anger is a sin, and some demons can be terribly subtle about leading the pure into misguided ways...

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Rune

Intelligent undead and many demon types should be covered by a full 20 pt. Code vs. Killing. They may be irredeemeably evil, but since they are sentient, they should be covered by the Code.

 

Whereas I look at it this way- code vs _killing_. Demons are not alive (depending on campaign world- the usual trope of them going back to the home plane thing), undead are not alive; in fact they are already dead, the character is just keeping them from moving around.

[Badger]

Undead are supposed to be dead, so in most cases this would be ok. Also a religious type character should get the ok on killing the demon.

 

 

But I do have to agree that it depends on what the character believes of these opponents on what he will do.

 

It's so much easier not to have that annoying Code vs Killing thing.

[Vondy]

I think undead and demons are a logical exception to a normative code versus killing. I would probably create a +5 adder for a character who included them.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Von D-Man

I think undead and demons are a logical exception to a normative code versus killing. I would probably create a +5 adder for a character who included them.

 

A western, Judeo-Christian normative, you mean.

 

Man, the ethnocentricity oozing from this thread is copious!

[SomeAsianKid]

Just a random thought: but since so many heroes have code versus killing in the comic world, how come no one ever hears them protesting the death penalty? I mean, if Cap is supposed to be the living embodiment of the American ideal and all, and he's opposed to killing, I wonder what his stance on the death penalty would be.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by RDU Neil

A western, Judeo-Christian normative, you mean.

 

Man, the ethnocentricity oozing from this thread is copious!

 

Where did that come from?

 

Was it called for?

 

And is it accurate?

 

First - do you even know if the Jewish and Christian views of demons and devils are actually in agreement? (the answer is no).

 

Second - are you certain there is even a context for the sentient "undead" in Jewish tradition? (there isn't).

 

Third - please give me a cultural example where the undead are given the same right to "life" in philosophical thought as living creatures. Chinese legends are full of stories of vampire hunters who hunted them for the simple reason that they were vampires (and it was subsumed they were evil as a result). Their ghost stories are similar.

 

Fourth - There are also stories of the undead and demons in central asian cultures (non-jewish, non-moslem) that treat it as a given that demons and the undead are evil and need to be destroyed.

 

Fifth - the indio tribes of south america have tales of evil spirits (more lycanthropic tales than undead and demons) and great warriors who hunted them down and slew them.

 

Sixth - the author didn't ask for a cultural specific philosophical opinion, and as such, on a western, english language board its seems implied that the answer would be within the cultural context of the people he was asking, no?

 

Seven - All cultures have boogey-men (not all cultures have demons and undead). And all cultures generally exempt them from any normative prohibition against killing. Why? Its assumed in most such tales that they are an evil than threatens man.

 

You don't just get to dismiss someones position and call it ethnocentric. You have to bring a real argument, not an ill considered and uneducted declaration. Nor do you get to use the term Judeo-Christian 1) on a topic where it doesn't apply, or 2) as though its an automatic mark against an idea's validity.

 

If you have some concrete examples of cultures where the undead and demons are accorded philosophical equality in terms of the right to life - please, by all means, bring them. I'm happy to learn. But I've already cited several non-Judeo-Christian examples where cultural boogey-men aren't accorded a right to life.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by SomeAsianKid

Just a random thought: but since so many heroes have code versus killing in the comic world, how come no one ever hears them protesting the death penalty? I mean, if Cap is supposed to be the living embodiment of the American ideal and all, and he's opposed to killing, I wonder what his stance on the death penalty would be.

 

Well, in the case of Captain America, like Superman he's one of the staunchest believers in "the system." IMHO both of them would probably say that it's up to the law to decide how lawbreakers should be punished, and that individuals have no right to make life-or-death judgements... at least not unless there's no other way to save innocent lives.

 

Interestingly the Batman, with far less faith in the system, seems to hold a similar belief.

[Vex]

Just out of curiousity, how do jewish people view demons?

 

As far as Batman, if he doesn't believe someone is guilty he would pull out all of the stops to prove with forensic evidence that the person was innocent.....kind of the pointy earred predecessor to CSI: New York....

 

In fact now that I think about it, Gary Sinise reminds me of Michael Keaton.......hmmmm......kismet?

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Vex

Just out of curiousity, how do jewish people view demons?

 

As far as Batman, if he doesn't believe someone is guilty he would pull out all of the stops to prove with forensic evidence that the person was innocent.....kind of the pointy earred predecessor to CSI: New York....

 

In fact now that I think about it, Gary Sinise reminds me of Michael Keaton.......hmmmm......kismet?

 

Its... complex.

 

If I have time later I'll write a post about it.

[Chuckg]

In 'Devil's Advocate", the Joker was sentenced to death for a series of murders that, for once, he actually *hadn't* committed.

 

Batman collected the evidence to prove the Joker's innocence.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Von D-Man

If you have some concrete examples of cultures where the undead and demons are accorded philosophical equality in terms of the right to life - please, by all means, bring them. I'm happy to learn. But I've already cited several non-Judeo-Christian examples where cultural boogey-men aren't accorded a right to life.

 

I agree that the idea of unredeemably evil creatures is hardly exclusive to judeo-christian tradition; but in many cultures the lines between good and evil are not always so clearly defined. Many peoples have traditions of ghosts and spirits (often those of ancestors) who are benevolent and helpful if properly propitiated, but malevolent and harmful if ignored or slighted. The Chinese gui or kuei, and the ombwiri of central Africa fall into this category. In such cases the ghosts' behavior seems more dictated by self-interest or familial loyalties than any ethical predetermination.

 

Another example is the kappa of Japan, a water spirit which often drags passersby into the waters to drown. It also can be propitiated, and even befriended by wise men, to whom it will teach the art of setting bones.

 

Until fairly recently in history, it was common across the world for cultures to identify groups of fellow humans whom it was at least acceptable to kill without fear of punishment: religious "infidels," those of "lesser races," etc. There are parts of the world where this is still happening today. Given that kind of behavior, it's no wonder that human imagination has created creatures so different from men that they "must" be killed. The extension of questions of modern humanistic ethics to supernatural creatures, even in speculative fiction, is likely a very recent phenomenon. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on that, though.

[pinecone]

Sorry I only have a short post...re:Code vs Kill....Undead, fair game. I would have no problem with each individual hero deciding about demons but even if a hero decided it was OK I'd let a clever demon hit him with a Pres atk to cause him pause or even to change his mind. I often think of my CVK heros as "to humble to kill" ie they don't nessisarily oppose killing bad guys , they just don't feel up to making that determination themselve..."Thats why we have courts"