TheEmerged Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just curious, since this doesn't apply to me/my campaigns and is highly unlikely to happen given the players in the group. Those of you that all-but-require (or require) Code Vs Killing and/or feel it is an automatic part of the genre: do you make it an assumption (0-pt disadvantage), or do you "credit" the players for its value with regards to the 50-point category cap? As stated in the title, please keep the flames to "defrost". It's my inner game mechanic asking, not the GM and RolePlayer. I'm not asking you to defend whether you feel its in genre or not, and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other. I'm simply asking about what mechanic you use... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death tribble Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) If have to credit with the value from old time experience say 20pts. And enforce it. It has to have an effect. those that don't have it have the 0pt Reluctance to Kill as was specified in one of the Hero articles of yonks past. And those who have Killer or Will kill to save lives need careful playing. You can't just mow down anyone in your path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckg Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I give 'em the 20 points. It's a /required/ disadvantage, not a /free/ one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I give 'em the 20 points. It's a /required/ disadvantage' date=' not a /free/ one.[/quote'] That seems fairest to me, assuming you're going to require it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I've never had to require such a thing. Folks are aware of two things... 1) They're expected to uphold the law in their current capacity. This means not killing things as a matter of anything other than self-defense or the defense of innocents. 2) Doing something to the contrary will cost them experience. If they want to take a CvK, more power to them. It's very much in fitting with the genre. If they don't want to take it then they won't have the moral dillemma if a situation comes up and they have to pull the trigger. But there are no bloodthirsty types in the game right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrosshairCollie Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I give them the points, because it is a limitation; it prevents them from simply going all-out and being completely cutthroat, and there are repercussions if they mess up. And it's fun to watch the heroes gang up on the triggerhappy jerk when he does something excessively violent. For example ... in one of the last Champs games I ran, Sunbow (guy with fire-arrow powers) took a potshot at Icicle. No, he wasn't thinking. So, Icicle gets blasted, takes seven body from a 10d6 EB, and I apparently lay down a very nice description of her tortured scream as she's pelted by fire when she's pyrophobic (she had been going out of her way to avoid Sunbow the whole fight, though she'd been making Ego rolls). Anyway ... at this point, I get to break out the old 4E Normals Unbound, and the super-shrink therein. He actually RPed the CvK and its aftereffects of screwing up. Since he had a decent level of Money on top of it, he paid for all of Icicle's hospital bills and reconstructive surgery (I rolled a hit location, just for flavor, to see where she got hit ... it was in the chops). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I go with the 0 being Reluctant to Kill It goes from Code versus Any Killing to Personal CVK to Reluctant to the other end of the spectrum, Indifferent to Killing, Kills when Enraged/Berserk, Casual Killer and there are even more permutations. Worldmaker's site does a pretty good job of detailing all the various permutations to attitudes toward killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dust Raven Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) My campaigns have a default 0 point Reluctance To Kill (common, strong) with no enforcement. Why no enforcement? Because some characters really don't have it, but it's counterpart, Kills When Necessary (common, moderate) really isn't worth points in my games either. If a character does take a CVK (always at common, total), they are expected to role-play it. They will let the villain get away short term to save a life (even the villain's). They will also come down on anyone who kills or uses leathal force (though this hardly happens amongst the player characters in any campaign where even one character takes it). I frown on Will Not Kill (also common, total) because it's basically the same as CVK, but they'll let others kill for them. I'll occasionally give a villain WNK just to make him interesting (someone who might want his enemies dead, but will never do it himself). If I were ever to run a game where I'd require CVK, I wouldn't give points for it. I'd also make sure there's never a situation that can only be solved through killing or sacrificing another. They'll always be a way around it. If there isn't, then I'd no right to require it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jogger Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) Our campaigns has a 0-point Relunctent to Kill as the default. This means, you will be very unlikely to kill (or actions likely to kill) except in extreme circumstances usually to immediately save someone's life. There is a 10-point, Code vs. Killing (Strong), you will not kill (or actions likely to kill) on anyone, but you will use Deadly Force if you make your EGO roll (better have a really good reason if you're a Hero). There's a 15-point, Code vs. Killing (Total), you will not kill (period). You will criticize anyone seriously considering the idea of killing or being careless with powers that could kill. This is the comic-book boy scout. There's also a 10-point, Protect Innocent (Strong), you will go out of your way to protect innocent by-standers to the point of killing villians who make a habit of killing innocent people. This is our comic-book vigilante who chooses not to kill (by making an EGO roll with possible bonuses) because the boy scout gives a speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) CvK is not a requirement in our campaign, but all but one character has some level of it (Mostly 15 or 20 points worth). The only PC who doesn't is our team's leader Cyberknight, who as a professional US Air Force fighter pilot in his Secret ID knows it is sometimes necessary to kill. But then, we run a very four-color style game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupus Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) I want my players to have /some/ form of CvK. 20 point is possible, but anything else is, too. If they don't have a CvK, then they have the 0-point reluctance to kill, and I ask the player if they can put in some other disad which will let them fit in with the team - such as a loyalty to the team leader (so if the team leader says 'don't kill', they won't - not because they think it's wrong, but simply because team leader said no) or any other way of achieving that. It's like X-Men. Wolverine has no CvK. But he goes along with the flow, when he's with the team. He doesn't want to give them a bad reputation, or disrupt the team dynamic, so he doesn't kill when he's with them (unless he has a REALLY good reason). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Re: Quick Question for the "Automatic CvK" crowd (no flaming, please!) 0 pt Reluctance. Required CVK at some level, and for which you get points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.