Let's Talk CvK

[Koshka]

Yes, I know we've had other threads on this topic. One of my players gave me a really bizarre interpretation, and I'm wondering if anyone else has run across this one.

 

I'm running a Golden Age Champions game. The player in question was talking with another player outside the game, and her reaction was "let's check this interpretation with the GM". This should be an accurate representation, even though I got most of it from the other player, because Player In Question was sitting right there -- and while he's getting a few points for his speech impediment, there's nothing wrong with his ears.

 

1) 20 points CvK means the character must actively oppose war by all means possible.

 

2) 20 points CvK means if the character's country goes to war, the character will not serve in the armed forces under any circumstances -- including noncombat roles.

 

3) 20 points CvK means if the character's country goes to war, the character will not take any job that will support the war in any way. It wasn't clear if this included appearing at the USO or not, but it definitely included working in a war industry in your secret ID, helping at War Bond rallies, or signing on with the government as Official US Heroes Protecting The Homefront.

 

Now, this same Player In Question is the one who thinks 20 points CvK means you can kill all the bad guys you like . It's nice that he's willing to accept some limitation for his points, but this is ridiculous!

 

Needless to say, the GM will not be using his custom interpretation of CvK. Is it just me, or has anyone else run across Bizarro-world interpretations?

 

And Darren, is there room in the Golden Age Champions manuscript outline for a paragraph or two on CvK and war?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Yeah, that's pretty bizarre. But a Total CvK means exactly that: The character WILL NOT KILL, and would also generally oppose killing by teammates. I can't begin to see where he gets the idea he can kill all the enemies he wants with a CvK; just not friends. How is that different from a gang banger?

 

Mahatma Ghandi carried a stretcher on the battlefield during the First World War despite being opposed to war.

[Kristopher]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

If the player with the bizarre interpretation kept insisting on playing it that way, I'd politely ask for his character sheet, scratch out CvK, and ink in "Completely Opposed to War", maybe with a lower frequency.

[Karma]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

If the player with the bizarre interpretation kept insisting on playing it that way' date=' I'd politely ask for his character sheet, scratch out CvK, and ink in "Completely Opposed to War", maybe with a lower frequency.[/quote']

or "Code Vs. Other People Killing" or "Opposed to people pointing out his own hypocracy" but that migh be a bit harsh. Of course since none of these would be worth 20 pts he'd have to spend his XP paying off the difference

 

Sounds like his CvK isn't one at all, let alone a 20 pt one. Even someone with a 5 pt CvK will only kill when he has to, and certainly won't stop others (although he might argue against it). Like charity, CvK begins at home. If he's killing left, right and center how can he expect to argue (even by inaction) others should not to do the same? "You only kill Bad Guys? What are our enemies then? Doesn't every red blooded patriot have the same right, nay duty, to kill as many of *these* bad guys as he can in protection of his country/freedom/our way of life?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

A friend of mine who can reasonably be described as actually having a 20 pt CVK once described first person shooters as 'murder simulators'.

 

I shot back that they were hardly murder simulators, because only very rarely was anyone found guilty of murdering people who were armed to the teeth and hellbent on killing them, too.

 

It was more reasonably described as a combat simulator, in that you are in an environment full of people, similarly armed and hostile to your continued existence. Given those circumstances, what actions are called for?

 

War is a collective endeavor. Murder is an individual action. One can be entirely against murder and still support war. Especially when war is imposed upon one's country by an invader. Unless, of course, one feels that their individual preferences outweigh the continued existence of their nation, religion or race.

 

It is very important to note that outside of modern western culture, this is a mindset that can only be described as falling somewhere between unusual and aberrant.

 

$0.02

[Koshka]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

I can't begin to see where he gets the idea he can kill all the enemies he wants with a CvK; just not friends. How is that different from a gang banger?

 

I wasn't in the game where he got his introduction to Champions, but I've heard it described as "Cthulhupunk: The Masquerade" run with the 4th edition Dark Champions book. Apparently, literally every NPC the players encountered was 1) built on at least as many points as them and 2) out to kill them. I suspect he's thinking of CvK as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" -- and in the courts, self defense isn't murder.

 

Mahatma Ghandi carried a stretcher on the battlefield during the First World War despite being opposed to war.

 

If I have trouble with him (and I don't expect to* ), I've also seen a reference to a commando unit in WWII where all the stretcher bearers were pacifists. Between them and Gandhi, I should be set.

 

_____

*While we didn't know each other then, it seems we were in the same high school. The last time he got his old yearbooks out, he discovered I was on the honor roll. It may be a really low-level Reputation bonus, but I'm certainly going to use it .

[Trebuchet]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

I wasn't in the game where he got his introduction to Champions' date=' but I've heard it described as "Cthulhupunk: The Masquerade" run with the 4th edition Dark Champions book. Apparently, literally every NPC the players encountered was 1) built on at least as many points as them and 2) out to kill them. I suspect he's thinking of CvK as "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" -- and in the courts, self defense isn't murder. [/quote']Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.

 

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

I would kill to defend myself' date=' my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off. [/quote']

You and me both. I'd like to think it'd be a last resort, but I also have no qualms about it being a "resort" if the situation called for it. I've only had to use a firearm to halt a potentially nasty situation once, and I didn't aim it at the other people (who were also armed, by the way) -- instead of answering with words, I simply cocked my rifle. They decided they had better things to do and got off my posted "No Trespassers" land.

[freakboy6117]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

the religious versions of the CVK are quiet good examples

 

 

though shall not murder so self defense killing in time of war or

thou shall not kill ie the qaukers no self defense and won't fight for there country if it means killing but will serve as medical personel

 

thou shall not kill at all some buddhists who won't even harm insects path of non violence

[Lupus]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.

 

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off.

Sounds about right. I'm somewhat lenient in the CvK stakes, in my game - I'd call you 10 points. Actually, I'd call most normal people 10 points at most. 15 and 20 point versions are normally, in my mind, restricted to total pacifists, or superheroes. After all, most people don't have the luxury of trying other options before resorting to potentially-lethal force.

 

Different (more stringent/demanding) rules for those with the power to do HAVE choices.

[Just A Guy Name]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

I would kill to defend myself' date=' my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK.[/quote']I remember this used to be called a zero point disadvantage (for typical campaigns). "Reluctant to kill", IIRC.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

I remember this used to be called a zero point disadvantage (for typical campaigns). "Reluctant to kill"' date=' IIRC.[/quote']Yeah, Reluctance to Kill was from an old Adventurer's Club article. I always liked the idea.

[OddHat]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Your friend is full of it. "Pacifist" or "Anti-War" are valid limits, but they are not "Code Versus Killing."

 

Large numbers of field medics and support personnel in WWII were religiously opposed to killing.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Yep, this isn't CvK. Its some other disadvantage, or maybe just bad role-playing.

 

As for the more general question, it really depends on how the CvK is conceived. I tend to figure that most CvKs in anything less than a pure silver age game are essentially "codes vs vigilanteism." IOW, the represent a strong resistance to the idea of taking life and death into one's own hands, unlawfully, unjustly, and unnecessarily. Thus, the character refuses to take life because the power to do so is not his, and the power to avoid doing so *is*. However, he isn't necessarily opposed to those less capable using deadly force where appropriate ( ordinary police ). Likewise, it doesn't necessarily force opposition to suitably justified capital punishment or warfare, because in those cases, a legitimate authority is making the decision.

[zornwil]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Would just add that if the PC is totally opposed to killing AND totally opposed to war such that they would (for example) not aid the US government at all because it's conducting the war or the equivalent of such in Iraq, then, to me, that'd be worth two disads, the CvK one and another (infrequent, unless gov't interaction is so common) for the total opposition to war.

[Tech]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Gotcha. Well' date=' killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.[/quote']

I have a female character who's got innate wind powers. Genocide showed up (forgot why) but Genocide was ready for the fellow teammate with powered armor. They used a small robot which started to kill him; this was all-in-all a very energy-laden and emotional episode, particularly because of the next scene:

 

My character flies up to the commander and tells him to call off the attack and she'll willingly go with him, no questions. Now, I actually struggled with her saying that because I knew the consequences but it was in character. It worked at any rate and Genocide started to leave, my character with. I had her say a brief 'Goodbye' to her teammates realizing she was walking towards her death. This left the group in tortured confusion for a few moments. Fortunately, that got my armored teammate to seriously push his attack & vaporize the robot hurting him. They rescued her before she got too far (after all, she gave her word, not them) and managed to beat Genocide. Afterwards, the PC's and characters were emotionally drained but thoroughly enjoyed the episode.

 

The point is that instead of unleashing a barage of attacks to try to kill to protect her teammates, my character willingly offered her life. That's what a total Code vs Killing is about.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

There's definately a difference between CVK and what you have described.

 

When I allow it at all, I require CVK to be Common, Total. Any less than that and you're just playing an average character. In my opinion, the average person would have to make an EGO roll to kill someone unless in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, most would end up appalled at their actions. A person who can kill without a twinge is mentally disturbed.

 

(Quick note: I'm not referring to soldering or killing on combat. The military works hard at dehumanizing the "enemy". Since this aspect of the topic is best left for the NGD board, I'll get back to CVK.)

 

When a character has CVK, they just don't want to kill for any reason. Such characters who routinely find themselves in combat should be afraid of killing. I've seen enough starting characters, usually with new players, take a 12d6 EB to a standard VIPER agent and nearly kill him. A character with a CVK should never have used that much force. A character with CVK should almost always start out with very week attacks, 1/2 damage at most, until they can guage what their opponent can withstand. A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles, Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.

[assault]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles' date=' Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.[/quote']

 

So, no CVK for Batman, then?

 

This seems a little funny, since he pretty much was the first character to be given one.

 

(I still like the original, non-CVK version, though. And killer Robin, too.)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

So, no CVK for Batman, then?

 

This seems a little funny, since he pretty much was the first character to be given one.

 

(I still like the original, non-CVK version, though. And killer Robin, too.)

Batman is what you get when you combine a CVK with Vengeful.

 

Personally, I like to think of Batman as having Agressive in Combat, rather than the other two. He still has reluctance to kill, at no point value like anyone, and takes it seriously, which is more of a quirk than an actual Disad.

[zornwil]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

There's definately a difference between CVK and what you have described.

 

When I allow it at all, I require CVK to be Common, Total. Any less than that and you're just playing an average character. In my opinion, the average person would have to make an EGO roll to kill someone unless in the most dire of circumstances, and even then, most would end up appalled at their actions. A person who can kill without a twinge is mentally disturbed.

 

(Quick note: I'm not referring to soldering or killing on combat. The military works hard at dehumanizing the "enemy". Since this aspect of the topic is best left for the NGD board, I'll get back to CVK.)

 

When a character has CVK, they just don't want to kill for any reason. Such characters who routinely find themselves in combat should be afraid of killing. I've seen enough starting characters, usually with new players, take a 12d6 EB to a standard VIPER agent and nearly kill him. A character with a CVK should never have used that much force. A character with CVK should almost always start out with very week attacks, 1/2 damage at most, until they can guage what their opponent can withstand. A character with CVK will also tend to rely on non-damaging attacks of they have them (Entangles, Flashes, etc.). Also, a character with CVK wouldn't be okay with leaving people maimed, battered and/or in a coma. Sure, it's not killing, but that's only because the character got lucky and the player can see the dice. A character with CVK should believe in critical hits and death blows, and be afraid that any heavy attack might cause one.

Not to argue the point, but I wouldn't call costumed vigilantes at all in the realm of normal people. I realize they're not soldiers, but their experiences, I think, would tend to make them less reluctant to use deadly force as well as more likely to face the consequences of death. Though I'm not suggesting they should be psychopaths or casual killers - not normally, anyway, there's room for Rorshacks and Punishers, but they'd still be the unusual case. But I think even something like the Incredibles, which is hardly dark, where Mr. Incredible throws the monorail vehicle onto two soldiers, which is certainly endangering life and limb, wherein we suspect the guards survived but there's still a willingness to use deadly force against deadly foes, is not atypical of the super genre, and I'm not referring just to Iron Age guts galore comics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Personally' date=' I like to think of Batman as having Agressive in Combat, rather than the other two. He still has reluctance to kill, at no point value like anyone, and takes it seriously, which is more of a quirk than an actual Disad.[/quote']

 

Given how serious he is about not killing (for himself and others), he should have the disad. He should also have a "Hatred of criminals" disadvantage. Combined, the two mean he won't strike to kill, but he will hit hard.

 

ASIDE: Does anyone else look sideways at a character with CvK who routinely strikes at full power against unknown opponents (ie anyone in a super-suit is assumed invunerable)?

[CBikle]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

This subject will be covered in detail in The Ultimate Code Vs. Killing sourcebook out in early '06.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Not to argue the point' date=' but I wouldn't call costumed vigilantes at all in the realm of normal people. I realize they're not soldiers, but their experiences, I think, would tend to make them less reluctant to use deadly force as well as more likely to face the consequences of death. Though I'm not suggesting they should be psychopaths or casual killers - not normally, anyway, there's room for Rorshacks and Punishers, but they'd still be the unusual case. But I think even something like the Incredibles, which is hardly dark, where Mr. Incredible throws the monorail vehicle onto two soldiers, which is certainly endangering life and limb, wherein we suspect the guards survived but there's still a willingness to use deadly force against deadly foes, is not atypical of the super genre, and I'm not referring just to Iron Age guts galore comics.[/quote']Good point. Of course, it's reasonable to assume that since deadly force had already been used against Mr. Incredible, he then felt himself free to "take off the kid gloves." Just because you're unwilling to instigate deadly force doesn't mean you won't do it under certain circumstances (Witness the JL episode "The Savage Time" where Superman, one of the icons of "won't kill" philosophy, clearly killed numerous Nazi troops.) in response to first use by the bad guys. He was still unwilling to kill Mirage after he was first captured because she hadn't directly threatened him.

 

I'd just say that Mr. Incredible had a 5 or 10 point CvK, and hence was able to make his EGO roll under extraordinary circumstances.

[Kristopher]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

 

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."

[Trebuchet]

Re: Let's Talk CvK

 

Some supers might have this idea of "I'll play nice as long as you play nice, and that way no one gets killed." They see the use of lethal force as "breaking the rules".

 

As soon as someone else crosses the line, then the kid gloves come off. "OK...we're not playing nice any more. Your funeral."

I think a Total CvK would preclude even that response. YMMV.

 

I think one thing that has become quite clear in this thread is that it is critical for players and GMs to discuss in advance what CvK means in the context of their particular campaign. Hashing this out in the middle of a game session as Squarejawed Hero is about to throw Nasty Villain to his death from a bridge abutment is Not A Good Idea.