Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

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

 

Well, if I suddenly stop posting, you can probably assume he took this advice.

 

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.

 

Which was why we were discussing it between ourselves. I had a view of a character who would react in particular ways, nexus had a view of my character sheet, the two may not correlate precisely.

 

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!" 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.

 

Yes?

 

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.

 

He's not easy to do any of those, but he _was_ a hitman. He can be paid to kill people, and will do so with no second thoughts (apart from 'how do I get away with this?').

 

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 Suzi 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.

 

He's not exactly a standard PC. He's an _extremely_ disturbing individual... but he can get away with it for two main reasons:

1) He's _good_ at killing people; casual killer comes out of years of practice killing people for money without getting caught.

2) There's no law; he's post-apoc

 

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.

 

Yep. That's the character (who I shall now call by his name; Robert).

 

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.

 

Try 'to stay alive'. Postapoc.

 

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

 

There's no need to go straight for the screwage; I was (and still am) happy to modify the character to fit the needs of the story. heck, idea #1 was an even sicker puppy, which got nixed.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

It is breezy and imprecise!

 

Ok, you think its breezy and imprecise but I don't exactly see why I'm getting pissed on about it. I didn't make it up, neither did Whammewhamme.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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.

 

I think 'for a player character' and 'for a heroic character' are two different criteria. I mean, Robert is not a good guy. He's a freakin' psycho. But he's an interesting protagonist, who will provide an RP challenge, and create interesting dramatic tension.

 

He is even somewhat likable, if you look at his merits.

 

In a less grim game, I would never consider playing someone like him. In the specific game, I think he'll fit.

[Vondy]

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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"?

 

"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.

 

"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.

 

Say rather that you wish to fully explore the debate?

 

But here you are discussing how the terms can be made more precise, and I am not suggesting my alternatives do not need refinement. I am suggesting, instead of producing dissertations defending language that has been openly and honestly interpreted different ways by different forum members, and therfore proven imprecise, that alternatives be found! That we actually make an effort to be clear, rather than sitting around saying "its all relative." Balderdash!

 

Though your comments on the last one seem like more of a point making quibble than anything.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Ok' date=' you think its breezy and imprecise but I don't exactly see why I'm getting pissed on about it. I didn't make it up, neither did Whammewhamme.[/quote']

 

Yeah. I freakin' pulled the name off a _list_. As such, it's a _very_ precise term, since there's pre-written paragraphs detailing it's exact meaning.

 

I called it casual killer because upon rereading the description I went 'yep, that's him'.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

In a less grim game' date=' I would never consider playing someone like him. In the specific game, I think he'll fit.[/quote']

 

Everything has its place.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Ok' date=' you think its breezy and imprecise but I don't exactly see why I'm getting pissed on about it. I didn't make it up, neither did Whammewhamme.[/quote']

 

NOTE: next time, please, tell us it is the DC "Casual Killer" disad and has a lovely little write-up defining from the outset. Then we can simply look it up and render a simple opinion on who is reading the text correctly. As it was, I assumed this was some term the player pulled out of their own buttocks and and annointed their character sheet with.

 

/Bangs head into table repeatedly.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

 

The following post has been rendered fundamentally irrelevent by a small but significant detail that has been added to the debate - that the term was taken from a freaking book! That its pregen, published, and expounded upon!

 

While I do think it is breezy, I do not think it is imprecise. I assert that it is demonstrably and factually imprecise. Said fact being demonstrated by the fact that, to wit:

 

1) you and your player have had a disagreement over it

2) when asked, I drew a different conclusion than you assumed I would

3) other forum members also assumed alternative meanings

 

It is not my intent to "piss on you," as you so eloquently put it. Rather, it is my intent to inspire you to search for a more precise term that conveys the intended meaning.

 

But then, if you and WhammeSquared cannot agree on its meaning after reading Steves column long explanation, the problem goes much deeper than the choice of descriptors.

 

Why God?! Why?! Why can't the pertinent and relevent details be provided up front?!

 

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Yeah. I freakin' pulled the name off a _list_. As such, it's a _very_ precise term, since there's pre-written paragraphs detailing it's exact meaning.

 

I called it casual killer because upon rereading the description I went 'yep, that's him'.

 

Its always nice when these pertinent details are provided at the beginning of the discussion. If the two of you cannot come to terms with the disad when steve has provided a pregenerated, detailed explanation, there is nothing to be done. Simply note DC Page X next to the disad and hand it to Nexus. Nexus may then look it up (as I am sure he/she/it has already done) and say yay or nay.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

While I do think it is breezy' date=' I do not [i']think[/i] it is imprecise. I assert that it is demonstrably and factually imprecise. Said fact being demonstrated by the fact that, to wit:

 

1) you and your player have had a disagreement over it

2) when asked, I drew a different conclusion than you assumed I would

3) other forum members also assumed alternative meanings

 

It is not my intent to "piss on you," as you so eloquently put it. Rather, it is my intent to inspire you to search for a more precise term that conveys the intended meaning.

 

I was trying to be precise.

 

Shit storm is ok, but "pissing on me" is somehow offensive or did I misread you?

 

But then, if you and WhammeSquared cannot agree on its meaning after reading Steves column long explanation, the problem goes much deeper than the choice of descriptors.

 

Many people have disagreements over language. Ask enough people what something means and someone will disgree with you eventually.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Its always nice when these pertinent details are provided at the beginning of the discussion. If the two of you cannot come to terms with the disad when steve has provided a pregenerated' date=' detailed explanation, there is nothing to be done. Simply note DC Page X next to the disad and hand it to Nexus. Nexus may then look it up (as I am sure he/she/it has already done) and say yay or nay.[/quote']

 

He.

 

I think Whammewhamme was using the Master List definition of the Disadvantage which is slightly different from the Dark Champion's version of that same disadvantage.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I was trying to be precise.

 

Shit storm is ok, but "pissing on me" is somehow offensive or did I misread you?

 

My reaction to "shit storm" was intended to be humorous. Perhaps even a touch self-deprecating. To have gone on to discuss the term would have diminished the point. My reaction to pissing on me, was a left handed way of saying you had conveyed your sense of injustice with precision. I do not care for either term, but both convey their meaning well.

 

Many people have disagreements over language. Ask enough people what something means and someone will disgree with you eventually.

 

True, in this case, I think I'll go read what steve wrote and tell you what I think it means. You gentlement can take the best three of five opinions, or something like that.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

NOTE: next time' date=' please, tell us it is the DC "Casual Killer" disad and has a lovely little write-up defining from the outset. Then we can simply look it up and render a simple opinion on who is reading the text correctly. As it was, I assumed this was some term the player pulled out of their own buttocks and and annointed their character sheet with.[/i']

 

/Bangs head into table repeatedly.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

 

The following post has been rendered fundamentally irrelevent by a small but significant detail that has been added to the debate - that the term was taken from a freaking book! That its pregen, published, and expounded upon!

 

While I do think it is breezy, I do not think it is imprecise. I assert that it is demonstrably and factually imprecise. Said fact being demonstrated by the fact that, to wit:

 

1) you and your player have had a disagreement over it

2) when asked, I drew a different conclusion than you assumed I would

3) other forum members also assumed alternative meanings

 

It is not my intent to "piss on you," as you so eloquently put it. Rather, it is my intent to inspire you to search for a more precise term that conveys the intended meaning.

 

But then, if you and WhammeSquared cannot agree on its meaning after reading Steves column long explanation, the problem goes much deeper than the choice of descriptors.

 

Why God?! Why?! Why can't the pertinent and relevent details be provided up front?!

 

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

 

I quoted the book version near the beginniing of the thread. Whammewhamme mentioned the Master List version as well. Casual Killer has been an "official" disadvantage for years, at least since Fourth Edition. I thought everyone that would care to read this thread would know that.

 

Von D-man, I don't interact with you that much online so I've overstepping some kind of bounds here, I'm sorry. But is something wrong? You seem a little on edge today?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

He.

 

I think Whammewhamme was using the Master List definition of the Disadvantage which is slightly different from the Dark Champion's version of that same disadvantage.

 

Yes, yes I was. And I was assuming they were the same (which they aren't, and which took me by surprise - for one thing, I thought Casual killer was Common in canon, when in fact it's vcom).

 

That said, we still had a little trouble once we'd both looked at each other's paragraph long predefinitions, since anything written by mortals (and possibly some or all things written by divine beings) is subject to interpretation...

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Okay, having read the description on P14 of the 4th Edition DC book: I think you are pushing the casual killer limitation a little bit farther than it really goes. The limitation provided for what you are suggesting seems more in line with "Vigilante Mentality" (P15, ad loc).

 

Casual killer specifically says:

 

"It signifies a person who has no compunctions about killing."

 

And

 

"He can kill quickly and unhesitatingly, without a second thought - it is a part of his nature."

 

And

 

here's where I think you are stepping past the meaning a little bit

 

"While that person's targets may be dictated by another psychological limitation, a casual killer will fell no remorese..."

 

The real defining point of when and how this character kills would come from their other psychological motivators. A character who is a patriot wouldn't hesitate, or feel remorse over black ops assassinations, even of a dubious nature such as "he knew too much" or "we think he spoke to the russians." A character who is a dedicated father wouldn't think twice about, or regret, gunning down swaths of people to protect their child. A character who has vigilante mentality (in fact it suggests coupling the two) would be all too eager to kill every criminal they meet. A character who has hatred of women and casual killer would be, well, a serial killer. A character who has drinks and drives won't sweat it if he runs down innocents on the way home from the bar. A character with bad temper would be inclined to kill anyone who pissed them off (your cliff scenario). This is a genre specific lim that serves as the icing on the cake for another lim. It needs to work in tandem with something else to be really meaningful.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

 

Von D-man, I don't interact with you that much online so I've overstepping some kind of bounds here, I'm sorry. But is something wrong? You seem a little on edge today?

 

I often respond to the first post in a thread before reading any of the other responses. I do this, 1) out of time constraints, and 2) to actually respond to the original question. Sometimes its beneficial. Sometimes its not.

 

I'm fine. I merely feel emphatic. Its more a passion for clear writing than anything.

[nexus]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I often respond to the first post in a thread before reading any of the other responses. I do this, 1) out of time constraints, and 2) to actually respond to the original question. Sometimes its beneficial. Sometimes its not.

 

I'm fine. I merely feel emphatic. Its more a passion for clear writing than anything.

 

Never read Rebecca Borgstrom. She might send you into a homicidal rage or at least give you a monster headache.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Passionate About Clear Writing (com, str)

Casual Killer (vcom, str)

 

 

Von D-Man: The Harbinger of Grammer!

 

This book sucks! BRR-R-R-R-R-RAPP!!!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Passionate About Clear Writing (com, str)

Casual Killer (vcom, str)

 

 

Von D-Man: The Harbinger of Grammer!

 

This book sucks! BRR-R-R-R-R-RAPP!!!

 

No similar passion in regards to spelling, however, seems to be in evidence...

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Okay, having read the description on P14 of the 4th Edition DC book: I think you are pushing the casual killer limitation a little bit farther than it really goes. The limitation provided for what you are suggesting seems more in line with "Vigilante Mentality" (P15, ad loc).

 

Casual killer specifically says:

 

"It signifies a person who has no compunctions about killing."

 

And

 

"He can kill quickly and unhesitatingly, without a second thought - it is a part of his nature."

 

And

 

here's where I think you are stepping past the meaning a little bit

 

"While that person's targets may be dictated by another psychological limitation, a casual killer will fell no remorese..."

 

The real defining point of when and how this character kills would come from their other psychological motivators. A character who is a patriot wouldn't hesitate, or feel remorse over black ops assassinations, even of a dubious nature such as "he knew too much" or "we think he spoke to the russians." A character who is a dedicated father wouldn't think twice about, or regret, gunning down swaths of people to protect their child. A character who has vigilante mentality (in fact it suggests coupling the two) would be all too eager to kill every criminal they meet. A character who has hatred of women and casual killer would be, well, a serial killer. A character who has drinks and drives won't sweat it if he runs down innocents on the way home from the bar. A character with bad temper would be inclined to kill anyone who pissed them off (your cliff scenario). This is a genre specific lim that serves as the icing on the cake for another lim. It needs to work in tandem with something else to be really meaningful.

 

In the case in question, he's selfish and pleasure seeking. The character will kill for money, or for (enough of) anything else he might desire.

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

In the case in question' date=' he's selfish and pleasure seeking. The character will kill for money, or for (enough of) anything else he might desire.[/quote']

 

What if he's foiled?

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

No similar passion in regards to spelling' date=' however, seems to be in evidence... [/quote']

 

I asked Ben to add an online spellchecker to the site. Click-Clack!

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

What if he's foiled?

 

What about it?

 

Omitting other reasons for or against, someone thwarting him is probably enough of a reason to kill them. If nothing else, it makes sure it won't happen again.

 

Is that what you're getting at?

[Vondy]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

What about it?

 

Omitting other reasons for or against, someone thwarting him is probably enough of a reason to kill them. If nothing else, it makes sure it won't happen again.

 

Is that what you're getting at?

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

Why not just distill into into: homicidal hedonistic narcissist and call it a day, because with that particular combination this guy is more twitchy than the Harbinger or Punisher on their worst day off the meds. That is an extremely broad combination.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!

 

JUST BLOODY ASK!

 

Have you considered using decaf?

[Trebuchet]

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']Precisely my point. At best it's a reminder to both the player and GM. It may indeed be possible to be precise in only a few words, but most people are not that simple to describe.

 

I mean, look at the classic "Protects Innocents" PsychLim that many, if not most, superheroes share. Exactly who is an innocent? Infants and toddlers? Children? Women? Virgins? The aged? Any and all non-combatants? Pets? Do armed citizens count as innocents? Do teenaged gang members count as innocents? What if they're shooting at the cops? At the hero? At other gang members? At a supervillain? Do any two players share exactly the same idea of what innocence means? In the Arthurian legends, Galahad was considered an innocent because his heart was pure, but he was the deadliest knight of the entire Round Table in combat.

 

No two or three word summary of a psychological condition can possibly substitute for an actual conversation on the topic between the player and GM.