Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Disadvantages' date=' unfortunately, should really be called "Limitations".[/quote']

 

And vice-versa. Alas, Hero Games has resisted correcting the system's many small flaws like this for a long time. Inertia is a powerful force.

 

(But that's a rant for another thread.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Disadvantages' date=' unfortunately, should really be called "Limitations". They limit the options of a player - and look at any number of character examples and you see plenty of such that aren't so much disadvantaging, at least overtly, as much as they are limiting . And unfortunately Limitations should have been called Disadvantages as they DO specifically disadvantage a power (PS - and it reads better as it's the opposite of an Advantage). At least that's my feeling, and much to VDM's point about precision in language.[/quote']

 

Except that Limitations applied to a power Limit that power's effectiveness (as compared to the Unlimited version) but still, at least in theory, leave a power that provides an Advantage against peopel who have no such power at all. Disadvantages, on the other hand, are applied to the character as a whole, not to a specific construct to be Limited.

 

[This is a very semantic thread...]

 

Perhaps the ideal would be to rename Advantages and Limitations "Modifiers" and simply refer to them as "Positive modifiers" and "Negative mofifiers". 8 charges is a Negative modifier and 32 is Positive Modifier.

 

That frees up the whole field of nomenclature for other areas.

 

We could rename Skills, Talents, Perks and Powers "Advantages" and thus remove the Supers connotation - these are things which give your character an Advantage over other characters. Disadvantages could then keep their name, as these are things that disadvantage, limit and restrict your character as compared to other characters.

 

At the end of the day, however, I don't see any new names that are head and shoulders superior to the ones we have now, so why mess with it?

[Mentor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

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.

This is true as far as it goes, but Navy Seals and other SpecOps types are trained and have the general aptitude for that kind of work. Snipers routinely quit after their first kill.

 

Many rear echelon troops and even green infantry types are hesitant to kill on first contact with an enemy. That is why training to instantly obey orders and the unit cohesiveness that makes a troop unwilling to let his buddies down is so crucial.

 

There is a real difference between being willing to put your life on the line and even take another life and being able to do so quickly, remorselessly and, back to the point of the thread, casually. I have "enjoyed" an all night drinking session with one guy in particular who was able to perform the mission without a hitch, but weeks later on returning stateside, cried like a baby and begged God to forgive him for the enemy soldier (although we were not at war with that nation) he choked to death until his eyes bugged out on the way in and the additional enemy soldiers in the Land Rover he hosed down with an M-60 on the way out. He was fine to return to duty after that.

Is that casual killer or not? I certainly don't know if I would so define it. He was quite nonviolent as a rule.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

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.

 

My take on Casual Killer as written up by HERO in the Official Sources is that it is some combination of Psychopath ("someone who is unaware or uncaring of Society's rules and mores.") and Sociopath ("someone who hates or has contempt for Society"), with perhaps some psychotic ("someone who perceives and/or lives in their own Reality unrelated to what the rest of us agree is Reality.") tendencys thrown in.

 

Even these terms are slang. More precise and professional characterizations can be found is the American Psychiatric Associations DSM (Diagnostics and Statistics Manual).

 

This goes _way_ beyond "being willing to kill legitimate combatents". It implies a disregard to some degree or another about Collateral Damage and the Lives of Innocents. This is beining willing to use a bomb to destroy an entire building of people in order to kill your target (or being willing to poison everyone in a dinner party to make sure the target is poisoned, or ...). This is being willing to strap explosives onto their child's carriage to guarantee that the "criminal" is a Ground Zero when you remotely detonate the device in pursuit of "justice". Batman and the Punisher, for all they are portrayed as "dark", are not Casual Killers. Neither is Wolverine. Sabertooth _is_.

 

EDIT: Real World examples of the difference between a soldier being deadly and being a Casual Killer do exist.

 

I'd have a very candid conversation with the player as to exactly what kind of character they are trying to play using example characters from literature, potential scenarios, and the choices they think appropriate for this PC in those scenarios. Then, assuming they really want to play a Casual Killer and you're willing to let it into the campaign, I'd ENFORCE them playing the PC as defined by the conversation unless or until they paid the points to overcome the DisAd.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just thought I'd say how I would handle it, and that's all. I'm not telling anyone else how they should do it. I generally don't like it when players decide to start out with an evil feeling concept. Unless I'm doing some oddball campaign, this just shouldn't happen.

 

I would choose one of a couple approaches, based on the general feel of the campaign, the rest of the character's concept, how I feel the player him/herself will actually be able to play the character without upsetting the game, how the other players and characters are likely to deal with it, how it looks like the player is going to develop the character, how the player is likely to take rejection, etc.:

 

1. I won't allow it. Don't argue. I want characters to generally be herioc. If you don't like it: bye.
   
2. Make it uncommon and moderate, and I really want you to think out-of-character about how playing to this Disadvantage will affect game play and story. Make it really fit, and try to somehow roleplay it as a real moral struggle for the character.
   
3. Take the maximum points for it if you want. The character's actions are guaranteed to have immediate and drastic consequences in game, so the character isn't going to last long anyway unless he quickly decides to battle this aspect of his personality and buy off the Disadvantage.
   

 

EDIT: Sorry. I meant to say that's how I would handle it if the player really wants the character's personality to be as described. If he merely wants people to react to him as described because of reputation and/or demeanor, I'd have absolutely no problem with a Reputation (as a Perk, Disadvantage, or both) and a high Presence (possibly with some Limitations on part of it).

[zornwil]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Except that Limitations applied to a power Limit that power's effectiveness (as compared to the Unlimited version) but still, at least in theory, leave a power that provides an Advantage against peopel who have no such power at all. Disadvantages, on the other hand, are applied to the character as a whole, not to a specific construct to be Limited.

 

[This is a very semantic thread...]

 

Perhaps the ideal would be to rename Advantages and Limitations "Modifiers" and simply refer to them as "Positive modifiers" and "Negative mofifiers". 8 charges is a Negative modifier and 32 is Positive Modifier.

 

That frees up the whole field of nomenclature for other areas.

 

We could rename Skills, Talents, Perks and Powers "Advantages" and thus remove the Supers connotation - these are things which give your character an Advantage over other characters. Disadvantages could then keep their name, as these are things that disadvantage, limit and restrict your character as compared to other characters.

 

At the end of the day, however, I don't see any new names that are head and shoulders superior to the ones we have now, so why mess with it?

The only one I really object to is "Disadvantages" because there really is more nuance than suggested by the name, even though it's not so wrong I object that much.

 

To be fair, and to admit to bblackmoor's point, I don't think I'd change it, either, though. Inertia... and more important things (Adjustment Powers being one).

[Ki-rin]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

IMHO, it might be better to use more precise terms and definitions if said terms and definitions are going to be so important to character concepts, game balance, and game play.

 

Dis Ads like "Casual Killer" probably should not exist. "Psychopath", "Sociopath", "Psychotic" (of which "Schizophrenic" is a sub catagory), "Sadist", etc with varying levels of Dis Ad would allow for more precise character concepts and role playing while increases the ability to Keep Things Balanced and Fun .

[David Blue]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The only one I really object to is "Disadvantages" because there really is more nuance than suggested by the name' date=' even though it's not so wrong I object that much.[/quote']Superworld called power limitations "Disadvantages," which was perfect, and character limitations "Handicaps," which sounded quite odd in many contexts.

 

Was "Psychosocial Problem: Distrusts all Communists" really that bad a Handicap for an FBI Agent back in 1984, in the middle of the Reagan years? Should Molecule Man get a Handicapped parking space for that?

 

DC Heroes was the worst though. Batman was built on his Catastrophic Irrational Attraction to Justice. I agree that Batman (well-written) is about as driven to achieve justice as anyone could be, but somehow I never thought of a passion for justice as either "irrational" or "catastrophic".

[Ki-rin]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

... DC Heroes was the worst though. Batman was built on his Catastrophic Irrational Attraction to Justice. I agree that Batman (well-written) is about as driven to achieve justice as anyone could be' date=' but somehow I never thought of a passion for justice as either "irrational" or "catastrophic".[/quote']

Bruce Wayne's "passion for justice" has led him to

a) to have no friends or family, and certainly no biological heirs.

keep files on how to neutralize/kill his closest allies in the JLA.

c) plan out "war game" scenarios that were step by step blueprints for the destruction of Gotham and Bludhaven's social structure.

d) manipulate and even beat up the closest thing he has to a friend, Clark Kent, a part of a complicated plot to fake his own death while making the point as to just who had the bigger cajones.

 

Etc, etc. This guy is a Bill Gates Jr level billionaire who had horrible violence mar his childhood and instead of putting all of his resources into reducing the chances that any other child will ever suffer as he did, he invests in Defense industries and focuses his entire life and fortune on being a one man, independant, and uncooperative, police force.

 

The man's a walking Psych Lim.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

The man's a walking Psych Lim.

 

Or, as they used to say in prep school, "Bruce has issues."

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Psychological Limitation discussion: Casual Killer

 

Or' date=' as they used to say in prep school, "Bruce has issues."[/quote']"Issues"?!? He has wholesale subscriptions!