Code vs Killing, in your group?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I have noticed in our games that the PCs rarely if ever pull punches against known supervillains.

...

Is this isolated to our games?

To quote "Pebbles" from the Champions game I ran at Bencon last weekend, when she finally spotted that her opponent had a costume underneath her civvies:

 

"She's got a costume? Oh good - that means I can REALLY hit her, right?"

 

[Edit: and that was from someone who had never played Champions before, so I think it's a genre thing more than a system thing.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I agree with most of what has come before. I have noticed in our games that the PCs rarely if ever pull punches against known supervillains. They might pull punches against agents and thugs' date=' but if Ankylosaur shows up (no matter what power level the PCs are) he can expect to get levelled with a full power shot. Basically, the mentality seems to be that he is a supervillain and as such the gloves are off automatically. We have never really penalized anyone for it or played up the fact that many gadget-using villains have been knocked into comas. Is this isolated to our games?[/quote']

 

I don't think it's uncommon at all. It does, however, make for a potential problem for CvK heroes if the villains note this interesting behaviour. Put the mayor in a Super costuime (or mental illusion), and SuperBoyScout will hit him full out, hospitalizing or killing him. What an excellent way to demoralize, demonize or at least distract SuperBoyScout so my own villainous activities go unnoticed for a time.

 

Villains who rely on force fields can also be very soft targets at times, especially if they need setup time to raise them. This was used in a 4th Ed scenario, as I recall (name withheld for spoiler reasons) where the heroes encountered a character once or twice, find him very tough, and later track him to his lair, where his defenses are down. He doesn't look different, but a solid shot from a Super will likely leave him hospitalized.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I once had a problem with a player who had CvK but would use his powers indiscriminately, blasting away full force at everything he saw. For the most part his reckless abandon on the battlefield was warranted since I was always attacking him with villains that were challenging. He often needed all of his might to prevail.

 

His total disregard for his CvK concerned me... Until I realized that I was an enabler, allowing him the excuse to ignore it. So...

 

One game I had a group of villains in power armor attack the heroes. However, inside the armor were brainwashed and infirm castaways that were being used by a major villain as cannon fodder. The armor was much more cosmetic than affective and the wearers of the armor rarely had more than 5 Body...

 

Well, as you can expect it was a massacre. The armored goons died left and right inside their armor and the hero didn't realize that he'd murdered dozens until their lifeless bodies were revealed. It wrecked him.

 

From then on he was much more careful and the CvK points were respected.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I once had a problem with a player who had CvK but would use his powers indiscriminately, blasting away full force at everything he saw. For the most part his reckless abandon on the battlefield was warranted since I was always attacking him with villains that were challenging. He often needed all of his might to prevail.

 

His total disregard for his CvK concerned me... Until I realized that I was an enabler, allowing him the excuse to ignore it. So...

 

An issue to be derived from this - if there's never any real chance an opponent will be killed, full power or not, why is C vs K worth any points at all? It's not really limiting the character, is it?

[input.jack]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

One game I had a group of villains in power armor attack the heroes. However, inside the armor were brainwashed and infirm castaways that were being used by a major villain as cannon fodder. The armor was much more cosmetic than affective and the wearers of the armor rarely had more than 5 Body...

 

Well, as you can expect it was a massacre. The armored goons died left and right inside their armor and the hero didn't realize that he'd murdered dozens until their lifeless bodies were revealed. It wrecked him.

 

From then on he was much more careful and the CvK points were respected.

 

Meaning no offense, but that sounds like dirty pool, to me. The idea of a villain using brainwashed cannon fodder; no problem. Him putting them in cheap armor, OK. But did the PC have any chance to notice that the armor was cheap and shoddy? Did you describe the armor shattering or crunchung inward when these guys were hit? Experienced combatants would notice something like that.

 

If not, then you basically duped the PC into killing, as you said, -dozens- of people. Brainwashed, innocent people. Thats enough to make most heroes QUIT.

 

A long time ago, in a decade far far away, there was an article in Adventure Quarterly (I think) about using a group of seemingly normal, but incredibly fragile villains as a means of teaching "a lesson" to Players. There was Gold Rush, Gold Brick, and one other I dont remember, but basically they were designed to be superhumanly strong and superhumanlt fast, but -incredibly- fragile. One hit from a 6d6 normal EB would likely kill them. They were susceptible to BODY from FLASHES for crying out loud. The scenario you described reminds me of that.

 

Unless the PC was given Perception rolls to notice that his attacks (especially if they were hand to hand) were doing -far- more damage to that armor than he thought they would, starting with the first time he hit someone, the PC didnt kill those people. You did.

 

As for the "Mr. Glass" scenario, I consider that a MUCH more valid way of approaching the situation, but only if the PCs are somehow made aware of his medical condition ahead of time. Then they are in a position to make choices, instead of just mistakes.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

As I'm someone that thought The Punisher movie didn't have a high enough villain body count, I think you can guess what my stance is on CvK.

 

But in general, I'd have no problem a character concept that avoided killing people. Absolute code verse killing (people that is)? Only in specific campaigns, Horror Hero, Ctthulu Hero. Stuff where people are not in general the primary antagonists (evil cultists, not withstanding.)

 

Danger International? Dark Champions (non-comic style)? Basically anything that is based in real life involving guns (or the like), there had better be bodies piling up.

 

TB

[WhataWorld]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

My group tends to run the gamut from Cvk to "oops, did I do that?"

Personally I tend not to take CvK's, prefering Code of the hero lims. I know it's a small point, but I have a tough time with "never, under no circumstances" aversion to Killing.

 

So I end up pulling my punches until I realize the bad buy can take it.

 

Well usually. One time we were confronted with a Big Power Armored bad guy, complete with large bomb. The countdown had started, so my brick did a full power move through on the guy. Unfortunately for him, he was only a mook, in pretty much a tinfoil suit. Didn't kill him, but my GM ruled a couple of broken limbs, fractured pelvis, some internal injuries....he was hurting in the hospital for a good while.

Turns out they were a distraction for another operation going down in another part of the city.

While the character was quite distraught(the bomb was a fake too), as a player I thought it was a great game. Very Supervillany.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

An issue to be derived from this - if there's never any real chance an opponent will be killed' date=' full power or not, why is C vs K worth any points at all? It's not really limiting the character, is it?[/quote']

Good point. Of course, given the number of fantasy and modern games I've played in where it was SOP to coup de grace all defeated opponents, I'd say CvK is still limiting. But it might only be worth an Infrequetly in those circumstances.

 

Unless the PC was given Perception rolls to notice that his attacks (especially if they were hand to hand) were doing -far- more damage to that armor than he thought they would' date=' starting with the first time he hit someone, the PC didnt kill those people. You did.[/quote']

Well, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. But I agree that the PC should've had the opportunity to notice what was happening. And in general, I share your hesitation over any scenario that starts out with "So I decided to teach the players a lesson..."

 

Well usually. One time we were confronted with a Big Power Armored bad guy' date=' complete with large bomb. The countdown had started, so my brick did a full power move through on the guy. Unfortunately for him, he was only a mook, in pretty much a tinfoil suit. Didn't kill him, but my GM ruled a couple of broken limbs, fractured pelvis, some internal injuries....he was hurting in the hospital for a good while.[/quote']

[ARNOLD VOICE]He'll live.[/ARNOLD VOICE]

 

Seriously, that seems perfectly in character to me. Based on the information you had at the time, you made what seemed to you to be an appropriate attack against what you thought you were fighting. Turned out you were wrong, but that *does* happen sometimes. CvK doesn't mean a character is perfect - just that they beat themselves up about it afterwards when they mess up.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

An issue to be derived from this - if there's never any real chance an opponent will be killed' date=' full power or not, why is C vs K worth any points at all? It's not really limiting the character, is it?[/quote']

There's one angle to that I think deserves some exploration... Given a character with CvK at a Strong or Total level, would they purposely arm themselves with lethal attacks? They may have one Big Attack in reserve for that uber-badguy, but everyone else they may use a series of non-lethal or even non-damaging attacks.

 

Are they still Limited? Well, within their own little contained self - probably not much. They don't want to Kill people (Psych Lim) and have thus armed themselves appropriate to that Lim; is it still worth points if they are no longer in danger of using their own Powers to kill someone?

 

There's another dynamic ... CvK isn't just "I won't kill them." -- A character with CvK should not just stand by and go "Well, he doesn't have a CvK, and I'm not killing him so I'll let Meatgrinder The Pulperizer kill him and I'm in the moral clear" ... they should actively prevent OTHER people from killing as well, theoretically a CvK Character does not like nor with they tolerate blatantly lethal force.

 

So now you have to look at the CvK Character, their Powers, the other Characters Powers and Psych Lims, and the evironment of the game.... If all that adds up to no possibility of it coming into play then no, CvK is probably not worth any points - but if even one element comes up with a possibility of Lethal Damage, then it is worth complete and full points IMO.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

There's another dynamic ... CvK isn't just "I won't kill them." -- A character with CvK should not just stand by and go "Well' date=' he doesn't have a CvK, and I'm not killing him so I'll let Meatgrinder The Pulperizer kill him and I'm in the moral clear" ... they should actively prevent OTHER people from killing as well, theoretically a CvK Character does not like nor with they tolerate blatantly lethal force.[/quote']

Good point. The only part of Batman Begins I didn't like...

 

 

<spoiler alert on the off-chance there's someone here who still hasn't seen it>

 

 

...was the ending. "I won't kill you, I'll just let you die." Total Holywood cop-out.

[input.jack]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Good point. The only part of Batman Begins I didn't like...

 

 

<spoiler alert on the off-chance there's someone here who still hasn't seen it>

 

 

...was the ending. "I won't kill you, I'll just let you die." Total Holywood cop-out.

 

I agree completely. Although because of who he was talking to, Im pretty sure no one died there. No body = no death.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Good point. The only part of Batman Begins I didn't like...

 

 

<spoiler alert on the off-chance there's someone here who still hasn't seen it>

 

 

...was the ending. "I won't kill you, I'll just let you die." Total Holywood cop-out.

 

Yeah... Bats (the REAL Bats) would've never left Ra's Al Ghul there to die, but Input.Jack is right. Considering who it is we're talking about, it's highly likely that he's somehow still alive (albeit barely... just alive enough to make it to the nearest Lazarus Pit.)

 

As long as it's not something horribly cheesy like Storm Shadow's "Phoenix Trance" that prevented The Baroness's clip-and-a-half attack from killing him in the GI Joe comics back around issue 45 or so. Sheeeesh.

 

Pardon the derail. Carry on.

[Zed-F]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Along these lines' date=' it'd be interesting to see how a CvK group would handle a "Mr. Glass" style opponent. If you know full well that any hit against the character [i']will[/i] cause BODY, and likely death, what do you do?

 

0 PD/ED, 1-5 BODY, SUSC to energy attacks & toxins, SUSC to sensory overload, VULN to physical/energy 2x BODY... more as needed, but that should give an idea of the character

 

Make the character a mentalist "main villain" type and see what happens. The one loophole would be mental attacks, of course, but anything else would have a strong chance of hurting him too badly or would be pointless. Sufficient mental defense would be a necessity and appropriate to the character, since he isn't likely to have too much in the way of STUN or CON.

 

I'll have to use this sometime...

 

On another note, I'm with the "start weak and increase/decrease as needed" crowd, planning to cause no BODY damage to the opponent. I also see the validity of a "so long as they aren't dead" interpretation, but I don't think I'd award full points for that as a GM.

Entangle.

Grab and control. (not the same as grab & squeeze)

Sic the police on him.

 

Lots of ways to do it without hurting the villain at all.

[Zed-F]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

There's one angle to that I think deserves some exploration... Given a character with CvK at a Strong or Total level' date=' would they purposely arm themselves with lethal attacks? They may have one Big Attack in reserve for that uber-badguy, but everyone else they may use a series of non-lethal or even non-damaging attacks.[/quote']

I agree with that sentiment. I rarely take CvK characters for that reason, but when I do I make certain that the majority or even all of their attacks are non-BODY-damaging attacks. If they do take a BOD damaging attack, it's usually to be used against robots, walls, and other unliving targets.

 

For instance, my current CvK character has a MP with:

2 Entangles

1 NND

1 Suppress

1 TK (her only real BODY damaging power)

Desolid, Healing, and a Transform vs. Plants.

 

That said, it's still possible for her to kill opponents. In fact in her first combat she was having trouble immobilizing a light brick with her entangles, he was immune to her NND, and for story purposes I was disinclined to use the suppress. So she wound up TKing the guy and lifting him 20" straight up.

 

He chose to try to break out of the TK grab. Despite not having any flight or other useful movement power to let him avoid taking the falling damage. He KO'ed and inflicted BODY damage on himself. Fortunately, my character's CvK is only moderate, so while she was horrified, she had no problem coming to the realization that it was Not Her Fault the guy was an idiot.

[BcAugust]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Hmm... interesting. My experience with CvKs has been limited.(I had one character with no CvK, one with total, one at strong,and my current has a zero point reluctent)

 

I don't think people with totals should be penalized for having only non lethal attacks. Heck, I would look very, very askew at a Total CvK having an overtly lethal attack.

 

Of course, I also think most heros should be, at most, Strong CvK. Total CvKers are fanatics about it. And that should be obvious. Heck, my total CvKer nearly had a breakdown about members of her team killing Nazis, in a WWII situation.

 

However, I don't know that having no CvK makes it any better on a team. A mixture can be good, but it can be an explosive one with lots of infighting if the gm isn't careful. One or two people may have to leave, or change drastically if it goes wrong.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Good point. Of course' date=' given the number of fantasy and modern games I've played in where it was SOP to [i']coup de grace[/i] all defeated opponents, I'd say CvK is still limiting. But it might only be worth an Infrequetly in those circumstances.

 

I have no problem with characters adopting that as an SOP provided they accept that their opponents will likely have the same SOP. That tends to make for a higher PC mortality rate, but if they wanted a less ruthless game, they should set the example.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I think it's all about intent. Killing Attacks aren't always deadly, and non-Killing attacks aren't always safe. So just using a Killing Attack doesn't *necessarily* mean you're violating your CVK, and avoiding Killing Attacks doesn't necessarily mean you're adhering to it. If you use an attack (any attack), knowing that there's any significant chance of putting the target's life in peril, then you're violating your CVK. If not, you're not.

 

For example, if Green Arrow has a CVK, and he shoots a fleeing murderer in the leg to prevent him from getting away, has he violated his CVK? I would argue that he has not. Yes, it was a Killing Attack, and yes, it probably caused BODY damage to the target. But as long as it was used in such a way (such as reducing the dice, or targeting a specific location, etc.) that made it so it wasn't going to kill the target, the CVK wasn't violated.

 

It may sound a little Iron-Agey to put it quite this way, but a Code Against Killing isn't a Code Against Injuring. Batman obviously has a CVK, but breaks bones all the time.

 

Also, I think there's a flip side to the whole issue where the character *knows* the attack *won't* kill the target, just because of the game mechanics. Namely, that the character may *not* know that the attack *could* kill the target.

 

For an extreme example, consider a master villain who sets up a patsy with a suit of battle armor that's offensively-powerful, and seemingly defensively-powerful (but actually provides very little defense). Then he sends the patsy out to commit crimes. The hero, faced with this seemingly-sturdy armored villain, uses an attack that turns out to do lethal or near-lethal damage to the patsy.

 

This could make for some good angst after-the-fact as the hero laments the accident. But before-the-fact, the hero wasn't violating his CVK. He *thought* the villain was going to be able to withstand the attack without putting his life in peril. Just because it turned out the hero was mistaken, doesn't mean he was acting against his principles.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Of course' date=' I also think most heros should be, at most, Strong CvK. Total CvKers are fanatics about it. And that should be obvious. Heck, my total CvKer nearly had a breakdown about members of her team killing [i']Nazis[/i], in a WWII situation.

If she had a Total CvK, she should have gotten upset over it. That's what a Total CvK is.

 

That said, I generally allow some latitude in very extreme circumstances. Maybe because in the back of my mind I can still hear my kid-self screaming at Reed Richards for saving Galactus' life - great, he agrees to leave Earth alone, but how many other planets have you just condemned to death, Big Brain?

 

But the circumstances have to be about that extreme before I'll let a character ignore a Total CvK.

 

Good point. Of course' date=' given the number of fantasy and modern games I've played in where it was SOP to coup de grace all defeated opponents, I'd say CvK is still limiting. But it might only be worth an Infrequetly in those circumstances.[/quote']

I have no problem with characters adopting that as an SOP provided they accept that their opponents will likely have the same SOP. That tends to make for a higher PC mortality rate, but if they wanted a less ruthless game, they should set the example.

It's appropriate for some genres, of course. I was just saying using it an example of when a CvK can be limiting, even if all a character's attacks are technically non-lethal.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

A Total CvK character can have a killing attack, he just has to use it wisely and needs something else to use in most situations.

 

For example, War Wolf had an AP RKA in his Multipower (Laser Vision), and only used it on things like walls, Entangles, and nonsentient robots. His Electrostunner (EB, Stun Only) was his workhorse attack. Had he encountered a target that he was certain, CERTAIN could take it (someone like Grond), then he might have busted it out ... but it'd still be unlikely.

 

Of course, I take a 20pt Code on every superhero I play, so ... I can't say anything about the contrary point of view.

[Koshka]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

A long time ago, in a decade far far away, there was an article in Adventure Quarterly (I think) about using a group of seemingly normal, but incredibly fragile villains as a means of teaching "a lesson" to Players. There was Gold Rush, Gold Brick, and one other I dont remember, but basically they were designed to be superhumanly strong and superhumanlt fast, but -incredibly- fragile. One hit from a 6d6 normal EB would likely kill them. They were susceptible to BODY from FLASHES for crying out loud. The scenario you described reminds me of that.

 

Adventurer's Club, and I think the third guy was Goldmind (mentalist, of course). While I can empathize with the desire to get people thinking about how hard they're hitting, I would never use that team as designed. I have one player who's known for carelessness in combat, but if he needs another reminder I'll just whip up a super-mesmerist villain and send a bunch of hypnotized normals (in everyday clothing, of course) to dogpile him. If he can't guess that the 6th grade class on a tour of the museum might be slightly more fragile than a warship, oh well. Throwing them into costume, though, would encourage him to go full power, and that's not what I want -- I want him to think before swinging.

 

Oh, and as far as Mr. Glass goes, Darkness should slow him down long enough for a nice padded Entangle.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Meaning no offense' date=' but that sounds like dirty pool, to me.[/quote']

Dirty pool... Or a lesson well taught. I guess it depends on your perspective.

 

Oh, and my games are never as black and white as that brief post may have implied. There were many factors involved in and leading up to that battle.

 

Let me ask you something... Do you always spell out what's going on to your heroes? Or, perhaps, do you trust their judgment and allow them to figure things out on their own?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Adventurer's Club, and I think the third guy was Goldmind (mentalist, of course). While I can empathize with the desire to get people thinking about how hard they're hitting, I would never use that team as designed. I have one player who's known for carelessness in combat, but if he needs another reminder I'll just whip up a super-mesmerist villain and send a bunch of hypnotized normals (in everyday clothing, of course) to dogpile him. If he can't guess that the 6th grade class on a tour of the museum might be slightly more fragile than a warship, oh well. Throwing them into costume, though, would encourage him to go full power, and that's not what I want -- I want him to think before swinging.

 

Oh, and as far as Mr. Glass goes, Darkness should slow him down long enough for a nice padded Entangle.

 

In defense of the article in question - The Gilt Complex - the author had designed the chaacters specifically as a wake up call to characters throwing aroung large amounts of damage with reckless abandon, AND clearly stated in the article that, before hauling out this heavy-handed tactic, the GM should discuss the situation with the player(s).

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

It depends on the character, honestly - not everybody's CvK is created equal.

 

Even at the same level of committment, I interpret it differently for different characters. The only standard is:

 

A character with Code vs Killing will not, without having to overcome the limitation, take an action that they should reasonably believe will result in the death of another living being.

 

Now, I also believe in mitigating circumstances, even for the Total char's, as a note. If you're chasing down the guy who offed your best friend in your origin story, menaced your DNPC's, threatened to kill them, and has generally proven that he needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is... you might be getting off with only having to overcome a Strong, or even Moderate, depending on the situation, so that might not be considered a standard per se.

 

As for the rest of them... like I said, it depends on the character.

 

For example, Infierna had a Code vs Killing at the 20 point level. She was partly demonic, and her primary attacks were two KA's (claws and a hellfire blast), and a slightly weaker energy blast that still stood a good chance of killing a normal. Her whole concept, in a lot of ways, was built around the fact that she was, by nature, a killing machine that was trying desperately not to kill.

 

She saved the KA's for use against fellow demons (who didn't die, but were instead banished back to where they came from), robots, and structures. She pulled her punches with her energy blast against most beings who weren't clearly armored, because she was afraid that she might do too much damage.

 

This was even true of fellows like Grond, until she knew they weren't "balloon men" types - big, tough, but with the defenses of a soggy napkin in a hail storm.

 

That said, she had no problems with pulling the kid gloves off when it was clear they could take it. She still hesitated to use KA's, but if it was the only thing that'd get through, it was the only thing that'd get through. She's pretty well in the middle ground.

 

On the 'silver age' end of the spectrum, we have Copper, an old character of mine who had an absolute code against killing. Of all his power-armor's attacks, only two even could do Body, his Strength and his 'sonic concussion wave generator,' a blaster that dished out vast amounts of KB. He would use his strength only against Brick-class sorts, and only pulled out the SCWG against targets who could obviously take being hurled the better part of a city block away (Bricks too big for him to punch into submission). Of course, at one point he pulled it out against Armadillo, not knowing that the sonic effect would be multiplied before the KB was calculated (the GM was sadistic)....

 

Yeah... he dropped by in Secret ID to deliver flowers to the poor schmuck's hospital room. Real torn up by the chance he'd taken; he started using the SCWG primarily against structures at that point, rather than people.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Void, also a Total CvK. He basically personified the quote used in a recent Quote of the Week: "I have a Code versus Killing, not Maiming."

 

He doesn't go for using blatant lethal force without justification, of course. He won't stand by and let his partners do so. What he will do, however, is break kneecaps, fingers, ribs... he has been known to engage in behaviors, to get information he felt was necessary, that Infierna and Copper would have both agreed showed that he needed to be taken out, or at least down, well before he was even as far as he was willing to go.

 

In a lot of ways, Void is more like the Batman from Batman Begins (though, admittedly, he wouldn't 'just let you die.' He'd try to get you out, get you to the hospital, if for no other reason than because he's not done beating the living daylights out of you let).

 

Now - three characters, each with a Code vs Killing: Total. Each with a very, very different set of tactics. Do any of them deserve fewer than the total points? I don't think so. Each of them runs into their own disadvantages strictly from their refusal to kill.

 

Infierna refuses to use her most effective attacks, and fights 'gently' for fear of hurting somebody too badly.

 

Copper refuses to use any attack that can do Body against somebody he doesn't know can take it - everybody else gets the Stun-only attacks, but despite his large number of stun-only, he loses the use of HTH attacks and has to be careful that his electro-blast doesn't knock somebody out when they're in a dangerous position.

 

Void, as much as he'd love to never have to fight his various foes again, simply can't bring himself to "sink to their level" - he routinely has to deal with the mental anguish of knowing that he's personally responsible (in his own mind, if nothing else) for every additional crime committed by a crook he's brought in. Further, he'll still take ridiculous risks to make sure his foes don't die, even putting his own (largely non-powered) neck on the line to haul them out of the base before it self-destructs. If he ever did kill somebody by being excessively violent, it would cause a crisis of conscience that could result in his shifting his entire tactical set.

 

So really... I don't think there's any 'right' way to do a CvK for any given campaign. For a given character, certainly - you just have to remember that it's called Code versus Killing. If you're looking for something more, you might start looking at upping that frequency and shifting the name to, say, Code versus Hospitalizing.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I don't think it's uncommon at all. It does' date=' however, make for a potential problem for CvK heroes if the villains note this interesting behaviour. Put the mayor in a Super costuime (or mental illusion), and SuperBoyScout will hit him full out, hospitalizing or killing him. What an excellent way to demoralize, demonize or at least distract SuperBoyScout so my own villainous activities go unnoticed for a time.[/quote']

On the other hand, this sort of tactic is perfectly in-genre, and should be anticipated as an option by the players.

 

Heck, it turned up in an episode of He-Man, in a variant method. Also showed up in SWAT Kats, for the fans of obscure cartoons, in a method that's a bit closer to what we usually see for superheroes (hero fires Big Attack at supervillain, misses, hits warehouse, warehouse blows up, turns out there were civilians inside who were put in the hospital).

 

The villains tricking the heroes into killing (or thinking they've killed) somebody they shouldn't is just another plot seed. The trick is to catch them at the hospital while they're laughing and joking about putting one over on you... then make them glad they're already at the hospital.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

On the other hand, this sort of tactic is perfectly in-genre, and should be anticipated as an option by the players.

 

Heck, it turned up in an episode of He-Man, in a variant method. Also showed up in SWAT Kats, for the fans of obscure cartoons, in a method that's a bit closer to what we usually see for superheroes (hero fires Big Attack at supervillain, misses, hits warehouse, warehouse blows up, turns out there were civilians inside who were put in the hospital).

 

The villains tricking the heroes into killing (or thinking they've killed) somebody they shouldn't is just another plot seed. The trick is to catch them at the hospital while they're laughing and joking about putting one over on you... then make them glad they're already at the hospital.

 

Which was actually the case in that episode of Swat Kats ... the two civilians were on the take from the episode's main baddy and pretended to be injured.