Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

[nexus]

I am having a discussion disgreement with a player over the Psychological Limitation "Casual Killer" (Common Strong).

 

I see it this way. The character hold life in no value, anyone's life except possibly his own or another person whom has some psych lim (or possibly DNPC) disadvantage regarding. He can kill anyone, at anytime without as moment hesistation, on a whim because it is convienient to him. Killing is his first thought not his last and he's as likely to punch someone in the throat crushing their trachea as tell them to shut if they are making too much noise. If there's no immediate repercussions and/or they are of no immediate use to him. He's not a psychotic uncontrollable murderer (No voices telling him to kill at random or anything) and may not get pleasure out of killing but that little voice that holds up back from acting "I could kill him" urges isn't there for him. He has to have logical reason not to kill or he can without hesitation, "Friend", foe or stranger, NPC or PC.

 

The player seems it more as the character can kill without hesistation and that unnerves people, makes them standoffish and leery of him since he doesn't have the hesistation that most civilized poeple have. I think that's more a Social Limitation or a Reputation.

[Fox1]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I agree with you.

[tkdguy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I don't know if he'll always go for a killing strike first (he's not a compulsive killer), but he won't think twice about doing it if it's the most expedient way to stop the bad guy.

 

Of course, he'd be considered a bad guy to the general populace himself.

[OddHat]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

You're the GM. You win. If he argues, kill him.

 

Then, to his still warm corpse, say "See?"

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

He can kill anyone' date=' at anytime without as moment hesistation, on a whim because it is convienient to him. Killing is his first thought not his last and he's as likely to punch someone in the throat crushing their trachea as tell them to shut if they are making too much noise.[/quote']

 

No, that's much worse than simply being a "casual killer" (which is already bad enough). From what your player says, and what I would think from my own experience, is that the character has no compunctions about killing if killing is the expedient course. That does not mean he kills on a whim, or that he'd automatically choose killing over other options. From what you say, the player may be downplaying the consequences of the disadvantage, but it sounds to me like you are exaggerating it at least as much.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

in other words, his PC gets to do whatever he wants.

 

I don't see how that in and of itself is any sort of disadvantage.

 

Certainly, there might be some disadvantage in the repercussions of said actions, but that's not what a disad is all about. There are negative repercussions about falling out of tall buildings, but I don't get points for that unless I am unnaturally attracted to jumping out of them.

 

Granted, if he has a reputation of doing such (and such activities are held to be unusual, reprehensible or otherwise abnormal) then a reputation is in order. But the activity that justifies such a reputation is not in and of itself limiting.

 

$0.02

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

No' date=' that's much worse than simply being a "casual killer" (which is already bad enough). From what your player says, and what I would think from my own experience, is that the character has no compunctions about killing if killing is the expedient course. That does not mean he kills on a whim, or that he'd automatically choose killing over other options. From what you say, the player may be downplaying the consequences of the disadvantage, but it sounds to me like you are exaggerating it at least as much.[/quote']

 

To me Casual Killer means just that. You kill casually. You can kill someone with the same thought most of us put into stepping on a bug. With hesitation and without remorse. What you're describing seems more like a character with Psychological Limitation about killing at either. either for or against not even the "default" relunctance to use lethal force for 0 points. As Common Strong disadvantage I'd think it should cause more "trouble" than "I can kill when I feel like it and not feel bad about otherwise I'm perfectly normal" AKA the standard attitude of pretty much any rpg character.

 

Edit: Also as far as the campaign setting goes aa Rep as "hard ass casual killer" is prohably as much of a beniefit as a penalty.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Looked it up in Dark Champions and here's the "Official" view of it:

 

Casual Killer (Ver Com, Strong) (snipped) It signifies a character who has no compunctions about killing and is prone to use lethal force to resolve problems. He can kill quickly and unhesistatingly, without a second thought and often does so-even when it would be better to leave someone alive (such as to avoid arousing suspicion). While the his other Psychological Limitation might dictate who he kills, a casual killer feels no more remorse when he kills those targets.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Looked it up in Dark Champions and here's the "Official" view of it:

 

Casual Killer (Ver Com, Strong) (snipped) It signifies a character who has no compunctions about killing and is prone to use lethal force to resolve problems. He can kill quickly and unhesistatingly, without a second thought and often does so-even when it would be better to leave someone alive (such as to avoid arousing suspicion). While the his other Psychological Limitation might dictate who he kills, a casual killer feels no more remorse when he kills those targets.

 

That's the _very_ common version.

 

I took the version for the PC from the Master Lists.

 

Casual Killer (Common' date=' Strong: 15 Points): A Casual Killer has no compunctions about killing. He will kill quickly and without hesitation or a second thought. It is part of his nature. He feels no remorse for his victims and has no issue with other people who use lethal force (in fact, he expects other people to use lethal force). This does not mean that he kills randomly and with no thought about consequences; it just means that when killing is called for (in his opinion), he kills. It is strongly recommended that Heroes not be allowed to take this disadvantage, as it makes for a cold blooded and brutal character. [/quote']

 

I think in that version one of the keys is 'he expects other people to use lethal force'. This edges towards paranoia, and IS likely to have him kill when it actually wasn't the best idea.

 

(He's no Hero, btw. He's an ex-hitman in a post-apoc world)

 

And even the other version doesn't have the character randomly killing people who aren't an enemy or an obstacle. (nexus said that it wouldn't just be NPC's that he'd have to make an EGO roll to leave alive... eep!)

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

That's the _very_ common version.

 

I took the version for the PC from the Master Lists.

 

 

 

I think in that version one of the keys is 'he expects other people to use lethal force'. This edges towards paranoia, and IS likely to have him kill when it actually wasn't the best idea.

 

(He's no Hero, btw. He's an ex-hitman in a post-apoc world)

 

And even the other version doesn't have the character randomly killing people who aren't an enemy or an obstacle. (nexus said that it wouldn't just be NPC's that he'd have to make an EGO roll to leave alive... eep!)

 

Yep, and when I was describing my interpretation I said the character would take some heed of the consquences of his actions before killing someone. I didn't say he was a random killer, but that he sees killing as the first and viable means of a solving a problem. He does consider the consequences of his actions. They just wouldn't be emotional or moral ones, just cold logic. "I could use this person later". You're "allies" aren't always not an obstacle, or a benefical to you. Sometimes they are useful. Sometimes they might have to die for your purposes. A character who is a Casual Killer doesn't have a problem with that, IMO.

 

Ex In another game, I had a Monster Hunter who was complately fanatical about killing the creatures. The rest of the party wanted to negotiate with them. This guy has Casual Killer as a Psych Lim. So, he decided that the "weak link" a pacfist character that wasn't "Pulling his weight" in the team could be sacrificed and he set it up so the it looks like the monster killed him. The pacifist character was another PC. This fired everyone else up to kill the beasts. Mission accompished. He's also blown up buildings full of civilians to get one creature (acceptable loses) and rigged another PC unknowgingly with a dead man bomb (which fortunately didn't go off). A character with that lim doesn't kill random becaues the voices tell him too or anything, just he doesn't give a damn when he does kill and thinks its a perfectly valid solution when he thinks he can get away with it. They have a very generous definition of "Acceptable losses" and the cliche about omelettes and eggs is taken to heart. He feels no guilt and no remorse in killing another human he thinks had to die at the time. He might feel a bit of regret if that person turns out ot later be required, but that's pretty much it.

 

Otherwise its "I can kill without hesistation when I feel like it." something any PC without CAK can do, but you get 15 points for it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Hmmm...casual killer. Here we have a character who never holds back or pulls his punch. He doesn't care whether his target lives. He doesn't care whether the innocents around him live. He won't go out of his way to put down the target who's badly injured, but neither is he going to lift a finger to save him.

 

"Would just as soon kill you as look at you" becomes a very apt description.

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I think you are right about what it means.

 

Bullseye from the DareDevil movie would be a great example with the guy he killed in the bar, and the lady on the plane.

[Victim]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

 

Otherwise its "I can kill without hesistation when I feel like it." something any PC without CAK can do, but you get 15 points for it.

 

It certainly would make difference when looking at Mind Control and other stuff that plays off the character's psych lims. A "Kill your friends" use of mind control might actually work on such a character. In many genres, a reluctant killer will have pretty much the same freedom of action, gets about the same # of points, and will have less problematic accidents.

 

Casual Killer seems to be in some respects the reverse of Code versus Killing or Will not Kill; both govern the level of force a character is willing to employ, but not necessarily the frequency in which they resort to violence. CvK supers seem to get into fights all the time. I don't see anything that would prevent a CvK character from firing a stun-only blast into some annoying guy's face, so I'm not that a casual killer would necessarily blow the guy's head off. While Bullseye certainly is a casual killer in the daredevil movie, he's got other nasty psych lims as well.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

It certainly would make difference when looking at Mind Control and other stuff that plays off the character's psych lims. A "Kill your friends" use of mind control might actually work on such a character. In many genres, a reluctant killer will have pretty much the same freedom of action, gets about the same # of points, and will have less problematic accidents.

 

I've always played it doe to personal preference that generally all character from a "civilized" world in the modern era have Relunctant to Kill as a 0 Point disadvantage. That don't immediately resort to lethal force, will tend to feel remorse when they do, etc. Reluctant to kill as such, isn't generally worth anything and even a 10 point CVK is stronger. A Moderate Psych lim doesn't mean you can freey violate it. It just means its more up to the player but they should try to follow its dictates and the GM can call them on it if he feel its getting out of hand.

 

Mind Control is an issue, but that's never going to come up in some genres and I don't feel peresonally that its common enough to make that big a difference.

 

Casual Killer seems to be in some respects the reverse of Code versus Killing or Will not Kill; both govern the level of force a character is willing to employ, but not necessarily the frequency in which they resort to violence. CvK supers seem to get into fights all the time. I don't see anything that would prevent a CvK character from firing a stun-only blast into some annoying guy's face, so I'm not that a casual killer would necessarily blow the guy's head off. While Bullseye certainly is a casual killer in the daredevil movie, he's got other nasty psych lims as well.

 

Casual Killer does effect the level and frequency of Force a character will use. I think CVK does as well. I've never liked Code Vs Killing character that gleefully employ their full Power attacks "knowing' that in Hero its almost impossible to one shot kill someone with a normal attack or even a small Killing Attack (and just playing the Stun Lotto). I don't see someone with a CVKJ being the sort fo fire their blaster into some guy's face as point blank range because he got on their nerves, even if it was set on stun. At least not ususally. A Casual Killer is just that. He or she kills easily. Its their first thought on how to deal with someone and they feel no moral compunction not ot do so. Their other psych lims might control who they feel like killing but killing is generally their first option. That's why the psych lim isn't ususually considered very "heroic" even in Vigilante games. If a Casuak Killer has a Pysch Lim "Hate annoying people" then anyone who is annoying is in some degree of mortal danger around him, ally and enemy alike. That character just doesn't have the "stop" signs that most people consider normal people to have when it comes to using lethal force.

 

To use an example from movies, I'd say most of the main character in Star Wars don't have a CVK at all. They'll kill when they have to in fights and employ lethal force all the time, but not generally gratitously. Even after his betrayal, Han didn't shoot Lando in the face.

 

Darth Vader, OTOH, is a Casual Killer. He kills people in fits of rage, when they dissapoint or annoy him or so on. And think nothing of it. But he's not an uncntrolled psycho killer. He CAN spare someone if feels its nessecary or his other limitation come into play such was when Tarkin orders him to stand down in Star Wars. He is very likely to kill when he gets annoyed though even people on his own side.

 

YMMV, of course.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Yep, and when I was describing my interpretation I said the character would take some heed of the consquences of his actions before killing someone. I didn't say he was a random killer, but that he sees killing as the first and viable means of a solving a problem. He does consider the consequences of his actions. They just wouldn't be emotional or moral ones, just cold logic. "I could use this person later". You're "allies" aren't always not an obstacle, or a benefical to you. Sometimes they are useful. Sometimes they might have to die for your purposes. A character who is a Casual Killer doesn't have a problem with that, IMO.

 

Ex In another game, I had a Monster Hunter who was complately fanatical about killing the creatures. The rest of the party wanted to negotiate with them. This guy has Casual Killer as a Psych Lim. So, he decided that the "weak link" a pacfist character that wasn't "Pulling his weight" in the team could be sacrificed and he set it up so the it looks like the monster killed him. The pacifist character was another PC. This fired everyone else up to kill the beasts. Mission accompished. He's also blown up buildings full of civilians to get one creature (acceptable loses) and rigged another PC unknowgingly with a dead man bomb (which fortunately didn't go off). A character with that lim doesn't kill random becaues the voices tell him too or anything, just he doesn't give a damn when he does kill and thinks its a perfectly valid solution when he thinks he can get away with it. They have a very generous definition of "Acceptable losses" and the cliche about omelettes and eggs is taken to heart. He feels no guilt and no remorse in killing another human he thinks had to die at the time. He might feel a bit of regret if that person turns out ot later be required, but that's pretty much it.

 

Otherwise its "I can kill without hesistation when I feel like it." something any PC without CAK can do, but you get 15 points for it.

 

Why couldn't you have put it like this the first time?

 

Yeah, that's him. I was interpreting what you were saying as he would disregard potential consequences, which he wouldn't. I mean, his career was devoted to killing people in ways he could get away with... he's all about the not getting caught (as opposed to the not killing people).

 

Collateral damage = np. Okay, he might occasionally let emotion override judgement, but simply being an innocent human being is no defense (being blood kin who he'd be willing to kill FOR is... but don't push it). And simply being a friend or associate isn't going to save you. [i like you. That's why you're still alive. Take one more step and that will change.]

[Trebuchet]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

To me Casual Killer means just that. You kill casually. You can kill someone with the same thought most of us put into stepping on a bug. With hesitation and without remorse. What you're describing seems more like a character with Psychological Limitation about killing at either. either for or against not even the "default" relunctance to use lethal force for 0 points. As Common Strong disadvantage I'd think it should cause more "trouble" than "I can kill when I feel like it and not feel bad about otherwise I'm perfectly normal" AKA the standard attitude of pretty much any rpg character.

 

Edit: Also as far as the campaign setting goes aa Rep as "hard ass casual killer" is prohably as much of a beniefit as a penalty.

I think you're on the right track, but I've always felt how much "Casual Killer" affects the character is at least somewhat incumbent on how many points he takes for it. With 5 points worth he'll kill an enemy mook rather than sweat trying to take him alive. With 20 points worth he'd probably kill a 4 year old because the kid's whining is irritating him during lunch. (At what point "Casual Killer" morphs into "Psychotic Killer" I leave as an exercise for the reader.)

 

Two movies to my mind provide a pretty good example of Casual Killer: Terminator and Terminator II:Judgement Day. In both films the cyborgs were perfectly willing to kill anyone who stood in the way of completing their missions, but both evil androids also told innocent bystanders (Truck driver and helicopter pilot respectively) "Get out" rather than simply killing them. A Navy Seal might snap an enemy sentry's neck without hesitation, but that hardly means back home he's going to kill his waitress if he doesn't like his coffee or his kid if Junior doesn't do his homework.

 

Ultimately, as with Code vs. Killing, it's not nearly as important how either the player or GM sees it as that they're both on the same page. It needs to be hashed out beforehand, and the best way is probably for the player to tell you exactly how he sees Casual Killer and then based on that you can tell him how many Disadvantage Points it's worth. And remind your player of the metarule regarding Disadvantages: A Disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage is worth zero points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Casual Killer does effect the level and frequency of Force a character will use. I think CVK does as well. I've never liked Code Vs Killing character that gleefully employ their full Power attacks "knowing' that in Hero its almost impossible to one shot kill someone with a normal attack or even a small Killing Attack (and just playing the Stun Lotto).

 

I've always been annoyed with characters who claim to have a strong CvK, but fire 12d6 blasts at unknown adversaries. If it can inflict 10 BOD to a normal on an average roll, that's lethal force to me.

 

Mind you, I'm also less than impressed with "overconfident" characters who take great pains to avoid putting themselves at any form of combat disadvantage. I recall one player who really had this down. Asked about his Brick's DCV, he answered "3". Another player said "I thought you had a 23 DEX". "Yeah, but Stonewall'sa not wasting effort to get out of the way of attacks from some unknown in a costume. He can't be tough enough to hurt me!"

 

A Casual Killer is just that. He or she kills easily. Its their first thought on how to deal with someone and they feel no moral compunction not ot do so. Their other psych lims might control who they feel like killing but killing is generally their first option. That's why the psych lim isn't ususually considered very "heroic" even in Vigilante games. If a Casuak Killer has a Pysch Lim "Hate annoying people" then anyone who is annoying is in some degree of mortal danger around him' date=' ally and enemy alike. That character just doesn't have the "stop" signs that most people consider normal people to have when it comes to using lethal force. [/quote']

 

All agreed. Although I don't see it in the most recent appearances, this was Deadshot for some time. The closest he ever came to any sympathy was when he basically told a potentially suicidal teammate "Yes, if you asked me to kill you I would do it. I wouldn't stop until you were dead. So consider that very carefully before you ask me."

 

To use an example from movies' date=' I'd say most of the main character in Star Wars don't have a CVK at all. They'll kill when they have to in fights and employ lethal force all the time, but not generally gratitously. Even after his betrayal, Han didn't shoot Lando in the face. [/quote']

 

And Obi-Wan takes an arm rather than a life in the Cantina brawl. Use of force was acceptable, but only the minimum force necessary to accomplish the goal. This seems a key difference between "Light" and Dark" in the SW universe - Luke's decision to kill Jabba and crew, for example, rather than leave when he had what he came for, indicated his precarious balance between Light and Dark sides of the Force.

 

Darth Vader' date=' OTOH, is a Casual Killer. He kills people in fits of rage, when they dissapoint or annoy him or so on. And think nothing of it. But he's not an uncntrolled psycho killer. He CAN spare someone if feels its nessecary or his other limitation come into play such was when Tarkin orders him to stand down in Star Wars. He is very likely to kill when he gets annoyed though even people on his own side.[/quote']

 

To a casual killer like Vader, death is a reasonable penalty for failure. "Casual" means just that - he thinks as much about taking a life as about changing his socks or paying a bill.

 

To a character with Code vs Killing, killing is never an option to be taken lightly, if at all - even if it's the only way. [Would Superman have supported blowing up the Death Star, or looked for another way?] Reluctance to Kill means it's an option, but the situation needs to be one where lesser force won't accomplish the job - there must be a solid reason to kill. To a casual killer, the opposite is true - there must be a good reason NOT to kill. As Treb points out this still comes with degrees, however I'd generally see his examples in terms of "common" rather than "strength". The Navy Seal has a fairly low level of "common", and may be better noted as "Casual killer in the line of duty". "Casual killer" to me rides up to the level of "no respect for life".

 

The next step up will kill even when there are good reasons not to kill - this is a "CvK opposite" who has to make an ego roll to leave an opponent, or even someone who annoys him, alive. "Psychotic Killer" or "Enjoys Killing" could be good descriptions. The killer who keeps killing, even knowing the police are closing in on him, for example.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

A Navy Seal might snap an enemy sentry's neck without hesitation' date=' but that hardly means back home he's going to kill his waitress if he doesn't like his coffee or his kid if Junior doesn't do his homework.[/quote']

 

In a Supers genre, I would see this as a restructed "Killer" such as "Casual killer in the line of duty". This reduces the "common" axis of the disadvantage. In a Military campaign, tjis might be the ideal description for the 0 point default - "Reluctant to kill" becomes relaxed when facing the enemy, but not (for example) when considering burning a village because there is, or may be, an enemy spy in there.

 

Ultimately' date=' as with Code vs. Killing, it's not nearly as important how either the player or GM sees it as that they're both on the same page. It needs to be hashed out beforehand, and the best way is probably for the player to tell you exactly how he sees Casual Killer and then based on that you can tell him how many Disadvantage Points it's worth. [/quote']

 

This is key to manuy disadvantages, IMO, and an excellent point.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Looked it up in Dark Champions and here's the "Official" view of it:

 

Casual Killer (Ver Com, Strong)...

 

That's "very common", Nexus. Scale that back to "common", and you have something closer to what I described, and to what I think your player probably had in mind.

[Fox1]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The Navy Seal has a fairly low level of "common", and may be better noted as "Casual killer in the line of duty". "Casual killer" to me rides up to the level of "no respect for life".

 

The Navy Seal more likely has a "Code of Duty" representing his oath to protect his nation and loyalty to the service and its members instead of any "Killer" description.

 

It just so happens that Duty involves breaking things and killing people. IF he starts to kill outside that duty (something rare, and something he can be brought up on chargers for), then other limits may be applied.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Ultimately' date=' as with Code vs. Killing, it's not nearly as important how either the player or GM sees it as that they're both on the same page. It needs to be hashed out beforehand, and the best way is probably for the player to tell you exactly how he sees Casual Killer and then based on that you can tell him how many Disadvantage Points it's worth.[/quote']

 

Excellent observation (and great use of the Terminator movies as supporting data).

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

That's "very" common' date=' Nexus. Scale that back to "common", and you have what I described,and what I think your player probably had in mind.[/quote']

 

Actually, my interpretation ws more restrictive (Common rather Very Common) than that one. And if you'll scroll back up. What I was saying WAS what he wanted. We just had a miscommunication. So that's pretty much solved. Thanks for your opinion though.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

To extend my bug comparison earlier (hopefully not too far)...

 

 

A Character with Casual Killer could snap your neck with the same thought most of it put into stepping on a bug. Almost none. Now, most people aren't going to run into traffic to step on a bug, or even really go out of their way. But they will step on it when they feel like it or feel its required with remorse or hesitation, sometimes just because they are in a bad mood and the bug happens to be there. A character with Casual Killer views killing much the same way. Now, someone with another Psych Lim such as Hates Bugs! might go out of there way and do dangerous things to kill bugs. A Casual Killer's choice of action would be effected the same way. If he hated a particular type of person he'd be much more prone to kill them rather than avoid, insult, etc. Other psych lims would function accordingly.

 

A person with Casual Killer and Easily Angered is a very dangeorous person to be around...

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I read the name of the disad and reached the opposite conclusion, my reasoning being: casual killer indicates someone who has no moral or ethical compunctions about killing, and will do so if it is expedient, or the mood hits them. It does not mean it is always expedient, or that they are always "in the mood." What you are describing is a compulsive killer - a psychotic.

 

On the other hand, there is a problem. Hero psych lims have both a strength, and a frequency based on how often these sorts of situations are likely to crop up. If the player wants his character to be a casual killer, rather than a compulsive one, the lim should be redefined. Indeed, even if they want to be a compulsive killer, rather than a casual one, the lim should be redefined. The word casual is open to abuse and interpretation.

 

The language should be precise.

 

I would recommend the player be forced to choose one of the following:

 

No compunctions about killing (Com, Mod)

Bloodthirsty or Triggerhappy or Compulsive Killer (Com, Str)

 

Either way, Casual Killer is ambiguous, and therefore indicative of an imprecise mind

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I read the name of the disad and reached the opposite conclusion, my reasoning being: casual killer indicates someone who has no moral or ethical compunctions about killing, and will do so if it is expedient, or the mood hits them. It does not mean it is always expedient, or that they are always "in the mood." What you are describing is a compulsive killer - a psychotic.

 

Um that IS what I was describing. I've said repeatedly that that character doesn't kill at random or for no reason but he has absolutely no compunction against killing and wil do so when he feels its required or the mood strikes him at the drop of a hat...if there is no compelling reason not to.