Code vs Killing, in your group?

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

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.

 

Heck, right down to how he found out about it. Yeah, I've watched that show way too often. One of these days I'll revive my attempts to stat out the TurboKat....

 

Anyways, we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Heck, right down to how he found out about it. Yeah, I've watched that show way too often. One of these days I'll revive my attempts to stat out the TurboKat....

 

Anyways, we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

 

Not yet ...

 

Woohoo!

 

NOW back to the regularly scheduled thread.

[David Johnston]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

One thing to be careful about is making sure just what it is that your character's code is versus killing. Living beings? Means you can vapourise mechanical beings and undead with minimal compunction. You may have trouble deciding whether the Vision qualifies, though. And forget about getting a job in a slaughterhouse. People? Are vampires people? Buffy had a code versus killing humans, and only humans.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

On that front, I've usually considered it a Code vs Killing Sentients, with certain robots who have a known history of being unkillable (Mechanon) getting the wave as well.

 

Of course, I also tend to buy at least one high-DC KA with the limitation "Only vs Structures, Vehicles, and Automatons" for just that purpose.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

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.

 

"The innocent man they tricked me into killing is still dead, but it's all good because we got to beat up the guy responsible" doesn't sound like a character with a total commitment to never taking a life, in my opinion.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Well, in the cases I mentioned, they didn't *actually* trick them into killing somebody, but made it *look* like they'd killed/almost killed somebody (the He-Man episode, they used a goblin with no heartbeat with an illusion to make him look human, the SWAT Kats episode they made it look like two old folks on their nightly walk got hurt, but in both cases nobody actually did get seriously hurt).

 

Of course, actually sticking a norm in tinfoil armor to 'teach the heroes a lesson' is something I'm shaky on, as both a GM and a player. Allow me to explain.

 

Heroes are on patrol. Doctor Destroyer (or other well-known, high-power armored villain) appears and threatens to blow up a public place. Are the heroes entitled in hitting him with the heaviest weapons they've got? I certainly think so.

 

But in this scenario, it turns out to be a mind-controlled normal, probably salt-of-the-earth type to really make it sting, wearing a fake armor suit. For whatever reason, the villain decided to break the heroes by making at least one of them responsible for the death of an innocent because they acted too fast.

 

Here's my problem though. Did they act too fast? Everything they know about the villain it appeared to be said that, if they didn't act fast, they were looking at potentially dozens of civilians getting wiped out. They acted, and against somebody like the real Doctor Destroyer, they probably wouldn't have even made a dent. Instead, they end up practically vaporizing Random Schmuck #32.

 

Is it in character for a villain to do this, to try and break them up? Of course. Is it in character for the heroes to be broken up about it? Depending on the hero, yes. Is it fair for the GM to do this?

 

I'm not honestly sure. At least not if he's just trying to 'teach them a lesson.'

 

However, in and out of character, I don't think they acted in a way that really needed to be 'punished.' They were presented with an imminent threat, and they reacted to it with reasonable force for the perceived threat. They perceived wrong... y'know what? They're only (super)human. Even if you've got a CvK at Total, I don't think that hammering somebody like Destroyer or Mechanon with your biggest gun in the first attack is out of line - it's good tactical sense, as there's no way that, in the apparent scenario, you're going to kill him.

 

The point where I really feel the resentment meter pegging out is in phase two, which I've seen too often.

 

After the heroes have accidentally hospitalized or killed numerous normals, and 'learned their lesson,' the GM decides to throw the real thing at them... and he follows through on the threat, blowing up a crowded shopping mall on Christmas Eve while the heroes are too scared to do more than shoot spitwads at him for fear of wiping out yet another civilian.

 

Again... it's perfectly in character, all around, the way both sides act. But I've had this pulled on me, and I really, really don't like it when the GM decides to teach the group of lesson, and then punish them for learning it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Well' date=' in the cases I mentioned, they didn't *actually* trick them into killing somebody, but made it *look* like they'd killed/almost killed somebody (the He-Man episode, they used a goblin with no heartbeat with an illusion to make him look human, the SWAT Kats episode they made it look like two old folks on their nightly walk got hurt, but in both cases nobody actually did get seriously hurt).[/quote']

 

So basically a game where there are no real consequences to the heroes hurling full-power attacks at anyone that moves, and everything will work out all right in the end. Cartoon violence. That's fine if that's the game you wnat, but given the near-impossibility of actually killing a target, is CvK really worth the same points as in a game where violence has more consequences?

 

Heroes are on patrol. Doctor Destroyer (or other well-known, high-power armored villain) appears and threatens to blow up a public place. Are the heroes entitled in hitting him with the heaviest weapons they've got? I certainly think so.

 

But in this scenario, it turns out to be a mind-controlled normal, probably salt-of-the-earth type to really make it sting, wearing a fake armor suit. For whatever reason, the villain decided to break the heroes by making at least one of them responsible for the death of an innocent because they acted too fast.

 

Here's my problem though. Did they act too fast? Everything they know about the villain it appeared to be said that, if they didn't act fast, they were looking at potentially dozens of civilians getting wiped out. They acted, and against somebody like the real Doctor Destroyer, they probably wouldn't have even made a dent. Instead, they end up practically vaporizing Random Schmuck #32.

 

Would they be held liable? I suspect not. Their actions are reasonable. They were tricked.

 

Is it in character for a villain to do this' date=' to try and break them up? Of course. Is it in character for the heroes to be broken up about it? Depending on the hero, yes. Is it fair for the GM to do this?[/quote']

 

If the hero has a CvK, I would suggest it's very much in character to be broken up about this, and very out of character not to be. The bigger question is whether this is consistent with the specific game's tone. If I were told "Silver Age game, all characters have CvK", and we were then faced with scenarios such as this, or complex moral dilemmas falling into the gray areas, I'd say no, it's not fair. Similarly, facing the PC's off against zombiefied normals where their only choices are "kill the innocents" or "let them kill other innocents" is not appropriate in such a game.

 

However, if the characters are supposed to be role playing a code vs killing, and they simply attack every opponent, known or unknown, with full force, are they playing the game fairly? Rather than dress up a normal in a tinfoil suit, the better answer is likely to advise the player he needs to find new disad's or direct XP to buying that CvK down/off, since he's obvoiusly not prepared to play it. Cyclops doesn't hit Magneto full force if Mags' shields are down either, because he fears harming people with his powers.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

However' date=' if the characters are supposed to be role playing a code vs killing, and they simply attack every opponent, known or unknown, with full force, are they playing the game fairly? Rather than dress up a normal in a tinfoil suit, the better answer is likely to advise the player he needs to find new disad's or direct XP to buying that CvK down/off, since he's obvoiusly not prepared to play it. Cyclops doesn't hit Magneto full force if Mags' shields are down either, because he fears harming people with his powers.[/quote']

I feel like I handled it perfectly... There were many clues that lead up to the PC accidentally killing mind controlled homeless...

1. There was a long-standing feud between the super(s) and a crime boss who had been watching them all for a long time and was looking for a way to discredit him (them). He had tried (and failed) on several occasions and the player(s) were very aware of his intentions. Inevitably he devised the plan to have them convicted of murder.

 

2. There had been a long-term sub-plot of white vans stealing away in the night with the homeless. The hero(s) were aware of this curiosity but had neglected to follow up on many levels.

 

3. Though the armor that the homeless were forced to wear, though mostly generic, had the telltale signature of the Mob Boss referenced above. The Players noticed this but ignored what it might mean.

 

4. The crimes committed by the power-armored homeless weren't crimes at all. In fact they were legally transporting contraband. The hero(s) never looked twice to see if a crime was being committed, and rushed to attack based of an anonymous phone call.

 

5. The actual armor was 15PD/15ED... Though it was obviously ablative that's not too bad. Adding that with the natural PD of each pilot gave the homeless an average of 17 PD vs. Normal attacks.

 

6. And this is the clincher... To kill the power armored homeless with one shot it would take an average Body (from Normal attack) of 27. Not one of the "paper armored" villains was killed with one blow... Often they were still alive after 2 attacks. However, they ALL dies when the super(s) applied their usual coup de grace to keep their opponents down for the count.

 

7. The player always held his CvK as the defining element of his heroism. He couldn't give it up without redefining his character.

 

In the end the heroes were convicted of a crime. Fortunately for them the Judge was aware of their personal integrity and self-imposed punishment and left them with suspended sentences. Later, after saving the city, they were pardoned of any crimes.

 

 

So you see... This was more of a mistake of the player, than the actions of a vindictive GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I feel like I handled it perfectly... There were many clues that lead up to the PC accidentally killing mind controlled homeless...

 

Seems to me that the players were more interested in wargaming than playing their characters, disads and all. Point by point:

 

1. There was a long-standing feud between the super(s) and a crime boss who had been watching them all for a long time and was looking for a way to discredit him (them). He had tried (and failed) on several occasions and the player(s) were very aware of his intentions. Inevitably he devised the plan to have them convicted of murder.

 

This one's neutral to me. A longstanding villain comes up with a plan.

 

2. There had been a long-term sub-plot of white vans stealing away in the night with the homeless. The hero(s) were aware of this curiosity but had neglected to follow up on many levels.

 

Again, neutral. Plot hook for a future game, maybe. The fact they don't follow up on something like this does, however, reinforce my "wargamer" theory. We won't investigate - if it means anything, the GM will make it come to us.

 

3. Though the armor that the homeless were forced to wear' date=' though mostly generic, had the telltale signature of the Mob Boss referenced above. The Players noticed this but ignored what it might mean.[/quote']

 

Still probably neutral - could just as easliy be real agents of the mob boss out to put them out of the picture once and for all.

 

4. The crimes committed by the power-armored homeless weren't crimes at all. In fact they were legally transporting contraband. The hero(s) never looked twice to see if a crime was being committed' date=' and rushed to attack based of an anonymous phone call.[/quote']

 

There's those wargamers/videogamers again. There's the plot hook. It can only mean what it claims to mean - NPC's never lie or mislead if it's part of getting to the combat.

 

5. The actual armor was 15PD/15ED... Though it was obviously ablative that's not too bad. Adding that with the natural PD of each pilot gave the homeless an average of 17 PD vs. Normal attacks.

 

The fact it's obviously ablative strikes me as a real tipoff for the heroes. I there's a real chance the soft target will take full damage, that's something a CvK character should take very seriously. Not just brush off as "Hey, I'm the hero so I get to use full power attacks. It's the GM's responsibility to fiat any serious injury away."

 

6. And this is the clincher... To kill the power armored homeless with one shot it would take an average Body (from Normal attack) of 27. Not one of the "paper armored" villains was killed with one blow... Often they were still alive after 2 attacks. However' date=' they ALL dies when the super(s) applied their usual coup de grace to keep their opponents down for the count.[/quote']

 

Ah yes - the rallying cry of all TRUE heroes, right? "Hit him while he's down - just to be certain!"

 

7. The player always held his CvK as the defining element of his heroism. He couldn't give it up without redefining his character.

 

May I suggest he hHAD redefined the character? He just didn't admit it or, perhaps, even realize it, but what I'm seeing from your description isn't a character with a Code vs Killing, but a player paying vague lip service to the concept in the hopes of justifying a large Disad.

 

In the end the heroes were convicted of a crime. Fortunately for them the Judge was aware of their personal integrity and self-imposed punishment and left them with suspended sentences. Later' date=' after saving the city, they were pardoned of any crimes.[/quote']

 

Sounds fair. How did they do in the Court of Public Opinion? I'd likely have the general public see them as less than exemplary heroes.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Sounds fair. How did they do in the Court of Public Opinion? I'd likely have the general public see them as less than exemplary heroes.

Actually that was interesting... Since the whole affair took place in the dark of night, down in the dirtiest section of the local docks, it went unobserved. The heroes, who had proven themselves time and time again, remained everyone's champions despite the court case and verdict.

 

However, one journalist, Hank Dugan III, wouldn't let the matter go (and he was right). His effort led to an underground movement to get the heroes retried for murder and even sparked a small wave of increased anti-paranormal sentiment across the city.

 

Eventually though, the general populace once again owed it's existence to the heroes and the elevated anti-paranormal sentiment all but went away when the team was pardoned by the Governor.

 

(This took many gaming sessions and supplied tons of Secret ID encounters/debates and normal-life sub-plots.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Seems to me that the players were more interested in wargaming than playing their characters' date=' disads and all.[/quote']

This is absolutely true and I (as GM) was the major cause for not introducing the proper environment and encounters. I coddled the players and gave them the game they thought they wanted.

 

However, when I came to my senses, put the burden on myself and revitalized the lethality of the game (along with other non-combat nuances) everyone prospered and the game the players thought they wanted was left far behind, replaced by a more sophisticated and interesting adaptation.

 

Everyone was much happier.

 

I liked to call it "Tough Love"

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

So basically a game where there are no real consequences to the heroes hurling full-power attacks at anyone that moves' date=' and everything will work out all right in the end. Cartoon violence. That's fine if that's the game you wnat, but given the near-impossibility of actually killing a target, is CvK really worth the same points as in a game where violence has more consequences?[/quote']

 

And the situations I was bringing up were in cartoons. All I was doing was pointing out that the scenario wasn't "oh, I killed the guy, but beating the guy up made it all better". That's all.

 

If the hero has a CvK, I would suggest it's very much in character to be broken up about this, and very out of character not to be.

 

Agreed, certainly. It's entirely in-character for the character to be broken up about it, regardless of campaign tone.

 

However, if the characters are supposed to be role playing a code vs killing, and they simply attack every opponent, known or unknown, with full force, are they playing the game fairly? Rather than dress up a normal in a tinfoil suit, the better answer is likely to advise the player he needs to find new disad's or direct XP to buying that CvK down/off, since he's obvoiusly not prepared to play it. Cyclops doesn't hit Magneto full force if Mags' shields are down either, because he fears harming people with his powers.

 

And herein lies my issue. If it's a matter of 'something they always do,' then I certainly think that the hero needs to get it through his head that he should pull his punches sometimes. However, that can be done any of a number of ways without setting up a scenario where a full-power attack is the only reasonable tactic to use. If you're trying to prove that they shouldn't use full power without question, you should give them a reason to question it.

 

The GM in question who ran the scenario I outlined was following the advice of an article I read that suggested having somebody like Mechanon or Doctor Destroyer - known quantities, characters who wouldn't even notice the average max attack unless it was pushed and coordinated - replaced with Mind Controlled Schmuck and put in a position to get wiped out brutally.

 

Now, characters in question (including mine) role-played through it reasonably, I think. They reacted as expected, dealt with it... and then, when the scenario went to its conclusion, and the characters were looking at what, by all appearances, was another setup, they were presented with the real thing when they held back.

 

My complaint isn't so much with the scenario, in generic. My complaint is when it's run in such a way that there's no logical reason to believe that you're being tricked - then you're tricked - and when you react as you should, when things have been successful, you're punished for learning the lesson that was being taught in the first place.

 

When that happens, you should expect your players to be more than a little miffed with you.

 

As for GoldenAge's scenario, given more details, that's fine. The players were too dense to realize that they were looking at a risky scenario, and they paid the price. That's not the scenario I was mentioning earlier, and doesn't bother me in the least.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

And herein lies my issue. If it's a matter of 'something they always do,' then I certainly think that the hero needs to get it through his head that he should pull his punches sometimes. However, that can be done any of a number of ways without setting up a scenario where a full-power attack is the only reasonable tactic to use. If you're trying to prove that they shouldn't use full power without question, you should give them a reason to question it.

 

The GM in question who ran the scenario I outlined was following the advice of an article I read that suggested having somebody like Mechanon or Doctor Destroyer - known quantities, characters who wouldn't even notice the average max attack unless it was pushed and coordinated - replaced with Mind Controlled Schmuck and put in a position to get wiped out brutally.

 

Now, characters in question (including mine) role-played through it reasonably, I think. They reacted as expected, dealt with it... and then, when the scenario went to its conclusion, and the characters were looking at what, by all appearances, was another setup, they were presented with the real thing when they held back.

 

My complaint isn't so much with the scenario, in generic. My complaint is when it's run in such a way that there's no logical reason to believe that you're being tricked - then you're tricked - and when you react as you should, when things have been successful, you're punished for learning the lesson that was being taught in the first place.

 

When that happens, you should expect your players to be more than a little miffed with you.

 

I agree absolutely. There's a big difference between giving the PC's anough rope and letting them hang themselves (Golden Age's scenario being one example) and setting them up to make the error (your example).

 

I do consider both viable in a game, however. The first is fine if the players aren't playing reasonably. Hopefully, they learn from the experience. In any case, the characters were negligent.

 

The GM needs to realize the latter is a dirty pool setup, and it should be handled carefully. The characters acted reasonably given the situation before them. There should be a plot reason that the characters are set up in this respect - they should not be demonized by the press, have charges stick, or any of the significant repercussions which the characters in the first scenario could reasonably face. That's not to say the CvK character should not feel considerable remorse over killing, or nearly killing, someone in this fashion, but it should be a role playing opportunity, not an opportunity to "punish" the player for having his character act rationally.

 

Neither should be common. If the reckless players don't get it, you need to adjust your game or find new players. The second can be expected to be very frustrating, and has to be played carefully. It's too easy to fall into the structure you describe, where the PC's are now paralyzed - ricked so often they have no way of assessing when full force might be appropriate. This is a typical game issue, in my opinion - the GM sets the gournd rules in play. Yours set the ground rule that, whne you start with full powered attacks, you lose. Then he set up a "start with anything buy and lose" scenario. I'd expect unhappy players too, but not for long since they'll be finding a new GM.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Nobody has it in our group. Nobody.

To be fair, my setting is post-apocalyptic, but still . . .

 

In fact, each week, one of our heroes (who has a Major Transform)

decides which (if any) of the bad guys he will rehabilitate.

 

 

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

wow, the necromancy lately has been happening at an increased rate.

 

Our current Defenders campaign can be summed up by Built To Last, our powered armor guy.

 

All Life Is Sacred, You F---s.

 

Though it is perfectly OK to use excessive force on Foxbat.

[Balabanto]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

In my game, it really depends on the target. There really is a threshold where some people are considered to be close to, or almost unkillable. Using a 4d6 RKA on the Terramancer, who has never been wounded since he became the world's mightiest Earth Controller, is unlikely to provoke an "Oh, my god" response, since nothing has ever been able to kill him.

 

If you unload an attack like that on a SPIDER agent or a street thug, chances are, he WILL die.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

In my game, it really depends on the target. There really is a threshold where some people are considered to be close to, or almost unkillable. Using a 4d6 RKA on the Terramancer, who has never been wounded since he became the world's mightiest Earth Controller, is unlikely to provoke an "Oh, my god" response, since nothing has ever been able to kill him.

 

If you unload an attack like that on a SPIDER agent or a street thug, chances are, he WILL die.

 

That's pretty typical. A character with a CvK will not unleash an attack that could be lethal against a target ... what attacks qualify as 'lethal' vary from target to target. A 8d6 normal attack could be fatal to a true normal, whereas, to use your example, Terramancer would laugh off a 4d6 KA.

 

Some people have actually looked at me strangely when they find out my supers (20pt CvK factory standard) frequently have large killing attacks. "There's nothing that says a character with a CvK can't have a killing attack. That just means they'll use it WISELY."

[The Weapon]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

If it's a big-point disad (ie. Strong or Total commitment) than I read it as "won't make an attack that reasonably be considered deadly". A 10d6 attack vs. a normal' date=' while it probably won't kill him in a single shot, could very easily drop them into "bleeding to death" (I usually use the Bleeding rules) and would not be done by someone with a CAK.[/quote']

 

I figure anything that's likely to put someone into negatives is off. So is anything else that requires immediate medical attention to prevent death. Remember "Pulling your punch", halves body so a 10d6 N attack can do at most 10 body, which won't make most thugs die. If you want you can buy PSLs in it.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

I have a battlesuit character, called Pacifier ("oh yeah, then suck on this!") who so against killing all his powers are stun only or NND. His worst attack is his 5d6 punch. But then, he was built to see if it could be done.

 

More commonly I use CvK as a no-no on using KAs against the living, and the Big Powerful Attack (tm) vs. normals.

[Princedarkstorm]

Re: Code vs Killing, in your group?

 

Depends on the campaign !