Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

[Trebuchet]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

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

Quite so. In my experience the most interesting PsychLims are the ones that interact with each other to provide a true multifaceted personality. Very few real human beings are one dimensional; and the best fictional characters share that trait. Casual Killer with Easily Angered. Overconfidence with Protect Innocents. Code of Honor with Must Complete Mission. These often create conflict within the character, and hence not only make the character more interesting and challenging to play but also provide ready-made plot hooks for the GM. And ideally, that what PsychLims and other Disads work best as. Using them only as free points for character construction totally misses the best thing about Disads.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

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.

 

As I said: casual is ambigous and a the product of an imprecise mind. It is open to interpretation, as is clear from your dillema, no matter who is taking which side of the debate. Require them to change the terminology.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

One more time.

 

Two people, no wittnesses standing on a high cliff.

 

Person A is annoying Person B. Person A has no CAK or anything else regarding killing but is a relatively psycholoigically stable person. He will get angry, shout back, stomp off, stc. He may, in the darkeset part of his mind consider shoving B off the cliff but won't do it (In almost all cases).

 

Same situation, Person A has Casual Killer. He would SERIOUSLY consider shoving B off the cliff. Its not a given, there are variables but its a viable option in his mind with no less weight than any other. It boils down to the situation and his mood.

 

Same Situation Person A has Compulsive Killer. He shoves B off the cliff, possibly before the fight even starts because his homocidal urges flare, the voice tell to him to do it or whatever.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

One more time.

 

Two people, no wittnesses standing on a high cliff.

 

Person A is annoying Person B. Person A has no CAK or anything else regarding killing but is a relatively psycholoigically stable person. He will get angry, shout back, stomp off, stc. He may, in the darkeset part of his mind consider shoving B off the cliff but won't do it (In almost all cases).

 

Same situation, Person A has Casual Killer. He would SERIOUSLY consider shoving B off the cliff. Its not a given, there are variables but its a viable option in his mind with no less weight than any other. It boils down to the situation and his mood.

 

Same Situation Person A has Compulsive Killer. He shoves B off the cliff, possibly before the fight even starts because his homocidal urges flare, the voice tell to him to do it or whatever.

 

If you couldn't explain your point in one concise sentence the language is not precise enough.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

If you couldn't explain your point in one concise sentence the language is not precise enough.

While I agree imprecise language can lead to problems, not all issues or points can be described adequately in one sentence. That's like requiring all great sagas to be told in only four frames of a comic strip.

[David Blue]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Well, first of all, what OddHat says is right. You're the gamemaster, so you're right, and if he disagrees, kill him.

 

Second, everyone agrees with Trebuchet because he's also right: the most important thing is that the player and the gamemaster are reading from the same page.

 

Now, from one player's roleplaying point of view:

 

1. The first thing "casual killer" does for you is completely eliminate that internal warning: "Stop! This is serious!! At least think about it!" No you don't feel any need to stop and think about it before doing whatever "seemed like a good idea at the time" - it's "casual".

 

If you see that it probably wasn't a good idea, it'll just be an "oopsie!" like any other.

 

I think it's a mistake to say someone with "casual killer" is totally rational about killing (especially if they took it at an "irrational" or "strong" level). Did you buy some marvellous power that made you super-rational all the time? Because people aren't rational all the time about - pretty well anything. It's just that the wise know when enough's enough. And you don't and can't know that. You've taken points on that basis.

 

If you can be jollied into telling an off-colour joke when that's something you wouldn't approve of normally, and you are a casual killer, you can be jollied into killing someone in just the same way, because no internal warning light goes red. And if you can be bribed to do something slightly unusual for you, or an attractive person of your preferred sex can get you to do things fairly easily, or if you can be hassled or baited or bullied into doing things, if you would do "something awkward" to settle a restaurant bill, to get creditors off your back, because someone annoyed you, for a nice suit, or for any petty reason, then you can be gotten to kill in exactly the same way.

 

At which point, considering you are an appallingly dangerous person, and you are probably not liked (I'll get to that), and there are likely to be conflicts of interest, the logical next person to be killed would be ... you.

 

God help you if you've fallen in with someone like Hannibal Lecter or even Suzie Marie Toller (discussed in the Extraordinary Gentlemen) thread, because everything will have been worked out well ahead of time to take advantage of what you're good for and then tie up the loose ends without fail, and you might as well shoot yourself - it'll probably hurt less.

 

The more pleasant option is - anyone with any wits at all who messes with a casual killer is going to have their vanishing act ready, leaving the killer patsy to explain it all to the judge.

 

For which reason, I think "casual killer" is a terrible disadvantage for a player character. The logical penalties, from the law and/or from the people who are likely to seek out someone like you, are such as to deter a gamemaster from following through - at which point, you've got a killer character in a situation where they haven't been disadvantaged and in fact they get rewarded because they'll probably get to kill lots.

 

2. I think an acid test of the "casual killer" is how the gamemaster and the other players react to the character. I feel the player with "casual killer" is doing it right, then from time to time, as a perfectly natural part of who the character is, and without your making any fuss about it or striking any poses, you should leave people seriously chilled, upset, shaken and hostile. Because human life should not be taken so lightly, and because that's (without the usual joking) just wrong. You shouldn't need to resort to any violence to achieve this effect either. It can be more upsetting to spare someone for a frivolous reason (especially when the original reason that you would otherwise have killed them was equally weightless in comparison to human life) than it would be (for the onlookers who understand what just happened and what nearly just happened) if you go ahead and kill.

 

Ultimately I think it's a good thing if (regardless of your body count), those who know the character best - even if they agree that he is stylish, well-mannered, useful and everything else - are weary and disgusted with him, and simply want him gone. Because ultimately this is someone who readily resorts to the most boring, abortive, trivialising solution to complexities of human interaction - and fundamentally no amount of sweet smells or snappy badinage can make up for vacuity.

 

All this is not good if you are hanging from the thin tread of others' affection and high regard, outside the law - which a casual killer soon will be. But if you're not going to go that far, then in my opinion you're not really playing the disadvantage.

 

Some examples of casual killers:

1. John Wesley Hardin explaining as a matter of fact that he didn't shoot men dead for snoring, he only shot one man dead for snoring. A real Casual Killer (CK) feels no need to pad his count. It's not a wrought-up ego thing, it's just something that happened.

2. Demise, from the Wild Cards books - with a powers (death-gaze and mega-regen.) that could have made him immortal - routinely killing people and piling up enemies who were bound to do for him in the long run. Just to settle his debts for moderate sums, or because he took pointless exception to some remark in a bar ("Look me in the eye and say that.") or because a taxi driver was honking his horn, for any or no reason.

 

"Tell me why!?"

"I don't like Mondays."

 

At minimum, absolute minimum, I think the player with "casual killer" should have their jaw stuck way out to be hit on the button at any time by a clever, manipulative "friend", and the gamemaster should take full advantage of a character who's never likely to see what's wrong with slaughter till he's the one that's slaughtered.

 

And the gamemaster should start thinking on the basis that the player character's friends either don't know him well and are possibly hard of thinking, or see right through him, grasp the basic disdain for human life where his heart should be, and find that convenient for some reason, good or bad. Think first about the good, friendly, life-affirming reasons why a highly intelligent, perceptive person would choose to hang around a cold killer. Then the bad ones.

 

If the player character is "lucky" it'll be something weird like suicide by mild provocation. Of course being the official guilty killer for someone who didn't want to take responsibility for ending their own life can have problems associated with it too.

 

What you really want is a non-player character whose death would:

a. profit some very clever and manipulative person who is not the player character

b. be bad or outright catastrophic for the player character, preferably also in a way that profits Mr., Mrs., Miss. or Ms. Clever,

c. and be totally, absolutely unable to be put right, in effect, by the killer just doing more (and more) of what's no big deal for him or her.

 

It Matty Walker (from Body Heat) or some woman of her (fortunately rare) stamp can't take hold of the smooth handle, as they say, and guide the player character to take care of her little problem for her, then I think you've got a basic roleplaying problem.

 

Ned: How's the cop business Oscar?

Oscar: Real good. Always starts hopping in weather like this. When it gets this hot people try to kill each other.

- Body Heat, 1981

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

While I agree imprecise language can lead to problems' date=' not all issues or points can be described adequately in one sentence. That's like requiring all great sagas to be told in only four frames of a comic strip. [/quote']

 

Naming a psychological limitation is not a great saga, nor should a dissertation be required. It can generally be expressed in two or three words. If it takes a Talmudic discourse to define the matter, its not a psychological limitation: its a bloody complex metaphysical quandry!

 

Vigorous writing is concise!

Meaningful writing is precise!

 

If its not precise, then it isn't meaningful, and if it isn't meaningful, it is an exercise in mediocrity. The extant debate, both between GM and player, and between the board members the matter was presented to, is plain evidence the term is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

Why on earth would someone settle for imprecise and mediocre language when there are far better terms at hand. Such a decision boggles the mind.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I've always been annoyed with characters who claim to have a strong CvK' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Agreed. I have always been of the opinion that a "killing attack" is any attack which would cause enough damage to kill a normal person.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The extant debate' date=' both between GM and player, and between the board members the matter was presented to, is plain evidence the term is ambiguous and open to interpretation.[/quote']

 

With respect, all terms are open to interpretaton by those who did not create them. You think that what you say is clear and unequivocal, but it is only clear and unequivocal to you. Language is inherently imprecise: that is why, when precision is needed, we resort to numbers (which is why I think Fudge is founded on an erroneous premise).

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Um that IS what I was describing. I've said repeatedly that that character doesn't kill at random or for no reason ...

 

That is what you originally said, actually. However, I am glad that you and the player appear to have found a middle ground on which you both agree. That's what is actually important: not the one-line summary on the character sheet.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

What you are describing is a compulsive killer - a psychotic.

 

This is so. However, Nexus has since revised his description to be more in line with what the player intended. So that problem has been resolved.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

With respect' date=' all terms are open to interpretaton by those who did not create them. You [i']think[/i] that what you say is clearand unequivoal, but it is only clear and unequivoal to you. Language is inherently imprecise: that is why, when precision is needed, we resort to numbers (which is why I think Fudge is founded on an erroneous premise).

 

Some words are more precise than others.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

... I think "casual killer" is a terrible disadvantage for a player character.

 

I sincerely hope that we are all in agreement about that.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

This is so. However' date=' Nexus has since revised his description to be more in line with what the player intended. So that problem has been resolved.[/quote']

 

Expounding on his meaning for the term "Casual Killer" does not alter the fact that the terminology itself remains imprecise. He has provided a lengthy gloss to explain what could easily be clarified with a more accurate use of language. Pray tell, will he print out this thread and staple it to the character sheet as an appendix with the notation "see attachment" next to the limitation? To do so seems ludicrous, but perhaps that is preferable to finding a meaningful and concise phrase.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

He has provided a lengthy gloss to explain what could easily be clarified with a more accurate use of language. Pray tell' date=' will he print out this thread and staple it to the character sheet as an appendix with the notation "see attachment" next to the limitation?[/quote']

 

The one-line summary on the character sheet -- every one-line summary on the character sheet -- is nothing more than shorthand for a concept on which the players have conversed and come to an agreement. Unless the disad is woefully shallow, the one-line summary can not and will not be sufficient without a more detailed conversation between the players. The one-line summary is a device to remind the players of the actual disad: nothing more.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The one-line summary on the character sheet -- every one-line summary on the character sheet -- is nothing more than shorthand for a concept on which the players have conversed and come to an agreement. Unless the disad is woefully shallow' date=' the one-line summary can not and will not be sufficient without a more detailed conversation between the players. The one-line summary is a device to remind the players of the actual disad: nothing more.[/quote']

 

And yet, this does not provide an argument against using the most precise language possible. To insist on using the term "causal killer" when more precise terms are avialable is to insist upon mediocrity. I ask, why would one insist on being mediocre?

 

Yes, I'm in a contrary mood this evening.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Naming a psychological limitation is not a great saga, nor should a dissertation be required. It can generally be expressed in two or three words. If it takes a Talmudic discourse to define the matter, its not a psychological limitation: its a bloody complex metaphysical quandry!

 

Vigorous writing is concise!

Meaningful writing is precise!

 

If its not precise, then it isn't meaningful, and if it isn't meaningful, it is an exercise in mediocrity. The extant debate, both between GM and player, and between the board members the matter was presented to, is plain evidence the term is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

Why on earth would someone settle for imprecise and mediocre language when there are far better terms at hand. Such a decision boggles the mind.

You're preaching to the choir on this issue, but not all people are equally gifted with language. Sometimes you must settle for less concise wording in order to get the message across accurately, particularly when the definitions of certain terms is ambiguous (or, more typically, definitions are what is being debated in the first place).

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

You're preaching to the choir on this issue' date=' but not all people are equally gifted with language. Sometimes you must settle for less concise wording in order to get the message across accurately, particularly when the definitions of certain terms is ambiguous (or, more typically, definitions are what is being debated in the first place).[/quote']

 

I agree! But to argue imprecise language is accurate when there is clearly discord over the term in question, and to reject the notion that a more precise term is called for in favor of breezy dissertations, all to prove your interpretation of an ambiguous and therefore meaningless term is better than someone else's, astounds the rational mind! My G-d Man!

 

Compunctionless Killer!

Kills When Expedient!

No Value Of Human Life!

Kills Without Hesitation!

Prone To Use Lethal Force!

Likes To Discharge His Overcompensatorily Large Phallic Symbol!

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!

 

JUST BLOODY ASK!

 

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

To insist on using the term "causal killer" when more precise terms are avialable is to insist upon mediocrity. I ask' date=' why would one insist on being mediocre?[/quote']

 

You think it's imprecise, and suggest options that you think are more precise. Another thinks it's perfectly precise, and thinks that your alternatives are ambiguous. That's the nature of language. That's why the one-line summary is never more than shorthand for a conversation among the players.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The problem here is that all language can be twisted. Ask the writers of legal statutes, counsel who must interpret them or the judiciary who must rule on what they actually mean.

 

For example:

 

Compunctionless Killer!

 

Oh, he has no compunctions. But he doesn't feel like killing right now. No better, really, than "casual killer".

 

Kills When Expedient!

 

I might get caught and face legal hassles. Not expedient.

 

No Value Of Human Life!

 

This one I like a bit better, but again, will it be any easier to directly state how it influences the character's actions than "casual killer"?

 

Kills Without Hesitation!

 

"Will never delay phase prior to striking a lethal blow"? The fact that one acts without hesitation says nothing about how often one acts. "He is slow to commit to a course of action, but once he has decided, he proceeds without hesitation" could include a Super with a Moderate code vs killing - having decided (and made his ego roll) that killing is necessary in this instance, he does not waste time implementing this decision.

 

Prone To Use Lethal Force!

 

"Bought a 12d6 Energy Blast :)"

 

Actually, this could be tweaked to be mush more indicative of how the disad impacts play - "Never pulls punch or uses reduced power" makes it pretty clear how the character must operate in combat. Of course, it doesn't dictate how frequently he resorts to violence rather than other conflict resulution approaches.

 

Yes' date=' I'm in a contrary mood this evening.[/quote']

 

Say rather that you wish to fully explore the debate?

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Um, is all this over my question about Casual Killer? I just used the name that was in the book and written on the character sheet. It seemed fine to me.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

You think it's imprecise' date=' and suggest options that you think are more precise. Another thinks it's perfectly precise, and thinks that your alternatives are ambiguous. That's the nature of language. That's why the one-line summary is never more than shorthand for a conversation among the players.[/quote']

 

The nature of language is that it has structure.

 

The nature of words is that they have definition.

 

Without definition, words lose their utility.

 

Without structure, language ceases to convey meaning.

 

...And we all go back to excitable grunting, scratching our testicles in public, and eating the lice out of one another's butt hair...

 

I do not concur all language is relative, or that all language usage is equal. The ability to write clear, concise prose is a skill that must be acquired and honed. It is not an inherent gift. Mastery of language is one of the most important, and most ignored, skills in American society today. I have worked with skilled engineers and programmers who are functionally illiterate. They could not convey an idea in written form. The fact that they presumed to write at all shocks the senses.

 

It is not a simple matter of one man's term being as good as another. Nor is there anything wrong with having strong opinions about what is and is not clear, and what is and is not accurate. In fact, the writer's opinion in terms of the clarity of their work is meaningless. The readers opinion is the one that counts. And this reader did not infer the meaning for the term "casual killer" that its presenter intended.

 

If that alone doesn't speak volumes, nothing will.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Um' date=' is all this over my question about Casual Killer? I just used the name that was in the book and written on the character sheet. It seemed fine to me.[/quote']

 

It is breezy and imprecise!

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Um' date=' is all this over my question about Casual Killer? I just used the name that was in the book and written on the character sheet. It seemed fine to me.[/quote']

 

When I first saw your post I thought "Seems like a simple straight forward question". Who would have expected such a shit storm?

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

When I first saw your post I thought "Seems like a simple straight forward question". Who would have expected such a shit storm?

 

Shit storm. That is precise!