Code vs Killing (Total)

[Sunday_Gamer]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Speaking as one of the players in said campaign, I might as well throw in my 2 cents.

 

First, my character Kid Nova, has a Code Against Killing, Strong. You gotta leave yourself that wiggle room... Now I didn't even roll to eliminate the aliens and here's why.

 

Definitions.

 

I have a code against killing human beings. Does that mean I can freely kill the benevolent aliens from planet yabo? No, I'd give them the same benefit I do humans. However, these hellspawns were growing in pouches hanging from the ceiling and my immortal sorceror, heavenly avenger and transdimensional cop all reacted very poorly and the sorceror said "demons"

 

Now when Mechwarrior, who I'll point out, I've never had friction with ( mostly cause I'm a brash know it all kid who does whatever he wants) objected to the killing, the GM confirmed that these creatures were in fact demons.

The problem was when he further explained they were a race of transdimensional conquerors, which kind of clashed with the standard definition of a demon.

 

It didn't help that maybe the players and GM didn't discuss the cross species nature of some possible CVKs. I, in choosing my Code, always meant for it to be a code against killing humans, but never defined it as such because aliens and other races were not really in the picture.

 

If a GM is going to introduce sentient alien races, he needs to ask his players to further define the code.

 

Conveniently my character is a gamer so his mindset is clear.

 

My code vs killing applies to all humans and all sentient non-totally evil races. If your race can de DEFINED as slavering demonic hordes bent on total annihilation... screw you, you're getting the full treatment. Now I'm not talking bad press and propaganda, the GM told us outright: " These things are demons in every sense of the word."

 

So the friction was, Mechwarrior sees his limitation as a total and complete refusal to take ANY sentient life, that's his call. However one of the other PCs is a demon hunter who knows these creatures as demons, a holy avenger who also recognized these things as demons, a trans-dimensional cap who said these are very very very bad must kill them all now now now now now ( he's a little violent...) and me... who knows NOTHING.

 

Maybe if the GM had checked with him he would have decided against a storyline that would force such a conflict but he didn't, so here we are.

 

As a GM, I would admit that I made the mistake once, and wouldn't again. If I'm going to have alien races, especially conquering ones, I'm going to ask some pointed questions about your CVK.

 

Should get interesting...

[Weldun]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

As Mr. Neilson just pointed out. A character with a total commitment against killing can still bring themsleves to kill, if they think that it's the only way to stop more deaths, by making an EGO roll at -5. That being said, I would only allow it if there was no other way of effectively eliminating the threat. If these alien demons can be effectively incarcerated or banished to where they can do no harm to another sentient life, then of course your player was correct in his playing of the disadvantage. And cudos to him for doing so in a very difficult scenario for it. I also agree that for common, it applies only to sentient, or even only apparently sentient/clever life. If was all animal life, it would be very common. If it was all life, they had better have LS: No need to eat.

 

Squid, total commitment doesn't mean that the character can't do it, it means he won't. Remember the key difference between physical and psychological limitations?

 

Sunday_Gamer. Nothing wrong with your character's version, in fact, in my mind it's still a common circumstance. I don't think that I have had a single character where one of the disads hasn't needed a little fine tuning. If nothing else, it's as you said. It should make for some interesting roleplaying.

[Vondy]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Well, I re-disagree. I would argue that Cap does not have a total code, for the simple reason that he's willing to kill in certain situations. I certainly don't have a problem with it being considered a badly-written limitation--very few characters have a total CVK--Reed Richards, maybe?

 

To me, "total" means "will take no steps that will lead to the death of another". That means no killing attacks. If the choice is let the villain escape with the nuclear weapon so that he can murder millions later or kill the villain where he stands, the villain gets away, because the hero CANNOT kill.

 

Yeah, it's interpretation, and mine's to the literal side, but if you don't want to be completely and utterly against killing, take "strong", not "total".

 

*Shrug.*

 

You are pointedly ignoring half of the mechanics of the lim and did not address any of the points I made.

 

Repeating your opinion is not a form of argument.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

If said villain's about to push the button' date=' I might be convinced, but if it's just "he's going to use it eventually", I disagree.[/quote']

Agreed, with the caveat that I don't think he has to have his finger on the button - if you've got reason to believe that this teleport is when he goes off to plant the bomb, and it will detonate shortly after that, you're entirely justified. But that's me.

 

IE - if Doctor Destroyer is saying "toodles! I'm off to plant this bomb in Manhattan, I'll be back just ahead of the pressure wave that slaughters millions," PTFT.

 

To me, the Total CVK is embodied by Galactus getting his butt kicked and, dying, is saved by Reed Richards. Richards couldn't be responsible for his death and, though bringing him back will cost other lives in the future(yes, I know, he's a galactic force and all, but Richards didn't know that), Richards still saves him.

 

No matter the cost to other lives in the future, he cannot kill him.

As somebody else commented, if he cannot kill him(/allow him to die), that's more of a very, very strange Physical Limitation. Cannot allow himself too... that's where I start thinking that Richards' Ego roll is lower than most might think. That, or along with not being aware that he was a galactic force, he also wasn't aware that, frankly, Galactus has no choice in the matter. He will eventually be forced into another situation where he will be devouring sentients by the billions, even if he doesn't want to, and it probably won't be too far off.

 

Galactus isn't what I would call irredeemably evil, but he is what I would call irredeemable - no matter how badly he might want to, he won't be able to stop, and even he would freely admit to that.

 

At any rate, that's a rather different side of the debate. I agree that that's a perfectly valid interpretation of a Total CvK, just a somewhat more extreme one than I normally would adopt.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Related to some things already mentioned, you can relieve the pressure on a CvK, so to speak, in the case of many supernatural creatures ( mainly demons ), if you have it be that "killing" them merely banishes them back to their home dimension, or causes temporary discorporation in their home dimension.

 

Thus, the issue of whether you should kill or not becomes moot, as you *can't* kill them. Unless your hauling out soulkilling attacks, which would require a very specific effort that would trip pretty much any even vaguely heroic psych limit the character has ( including all the 0 point ones ).

[MilkmanDan]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

*Shrug.*

 

You are pointedly ignoring half of the mechanics of the lim and did not address any of the points I made.

 

Repeating your opinion is not a form of argument.

 

Well, that's because I don't buy the other half of the limitation in this case. You can't be *totally* against something *some* of the time. That's like being sort of pregnant or finding out that a store that's open 24 hours isn't open 24 hours in a row ($1 to Steven Wright).

 

It's "total". It's not "usually".

[Grimrod]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I am also in Shafts' game, though it was being run by a different GM on this occasion.

 

I was involved in the decision to eliminate the "demons/aliens, I being an Avatar of God I have the power tell if the creatures are redeemable or not. I specifically asked the GM if this was the case, he siad the were basically totally evil. For my character who is a vengeance agel this was good enough. If that was not the case I would have stopped the chracter who did the actual killing.

 

Both the frequency and the severity matter of course in the way the disad works. But in reading the primary source of what a disad does is its defintion.

if you have a disad Cvk total common and do not really define it, it becomes meaningless.

 

If you do not really define it, lets assume you mean sentient beings, in that case you will not kill or allow to be killed anyone according the the defintion. The problem seems on how to define the frequency here: either is how often the situation arizes or broad is the choice of things you will not kill.

 

In the book its defined as how often does the situation occur, meaning you have to have a definition of the disad to see how often and and in what circumstances the event occurs.

 

In this particular case I Think Mechwarrior should have attempted to stop the killing, since if we use the basic default, he still has a total code against killing.

 

But he should define his disads better, but he is a D&D player ;-)

[gojira]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Just to clarify' date=' you mean it's the GM's choice or the player's choice?[/quote']

 

Player's choice!

[Valerious]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

One important difference between a moderate, strong, or total code according to the book is how rational the person is when faced with the situation.

 

Moderate: The code will decide their choice of action. Somewhat easy to change their mind though; an EGO roll at +5 is required. I picture this as the guy who doesn't beleive in killing, but can be reasonable and make rational decisions based on the situation. He'd take one life to save 50. He most likely will kill the villain stealing the nuclear bomb.

 

Strong: The character takes irrational actions where killing is involved. This is the guy who goes out of his way to not kill. When confronted with a situation where he might have to kill for a very good reason (like the villain and the nuclear bomb example again), he might be able to make himself do it, but isn't going to like it much. Even then, I think he'd only choice that after all other options are exhausted. He'll likely beat himself up over it for a long time, and wonder if there might have been a better way.

 

Total: Totally irrational. Will not kill. Ever. Teammates can't talk him into it. His dedication to not kill is so complete, that he simply cannot be reasoned with or persuaded on the matter. His conviction is unmovable. The EGO roll to overcome it is at a minimum of -5, but is at the GM's discretion whether to allow the roll at all. Personally, I only allow exceptions to a total code in extraordinary circumstances, like kill the villain or the world is destroyed kind of thing. This guy not only wouldn't kill the villain stealing the bomb, but he'd probably step in front of the bullet if a teammate tried to kill him, or stop his teammate in some other manner. He'd prefer to find another way to stop the villain.

 

Like others have said, a solid definition of the code is very important. For example, if a player tells me that his character would have no issue killing invading aliens, and I have a game world where such events are common, the I'd reduce the frequency on the disadvantage. If a target being "irredemably evil" voids the limitation, then I'd reduce the disad proportionally to how common an "iredeemably evil" trait is in my world.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Yeah' date='I'm with you, in wartime Total CvK's work as Medics, or other noncombat roles....Medic is plenty risky,he's perfectly willing to face fire, just not willing to shoot....[/quote']

A surprising number of Medal Of Honor winners have been medics, including quite a few conscientious objectors.

 

There's a famous B&W US film about a conscientious objector who also happens to be a crack shot.

Sergeant York, starring Gary Cooper, portraying real-life Medal Of Honor winner Alvin York, the most decorated American soldier of World War I. Great flick.

 

if Villain A is running off with the nuke that he plans on detonating in downtown Manhattan' date=' and Hero B is the only one who can stop him, but only by killing him... well, if Hero B has reason to believe Villain A is serious, Villain A had better hope his life insurance is paid up if that penalized Ego roll gets made. [/quote']

I would only add that the GM had better have talked it over with his player before putting him into a position where he's basically forced to violate his CvK. Some players like that sort of moral soul searching; others hate it.

 

Ironically enough' date=' this player doesn't believe that awarding points for psych lims, especially codes against killing, which he considers to be given to the genre, should be allowed (he feels that roleplaying opportunities are their own reward).[/quote']

And if all players were like him, there'd be no need to award points for Psych Lims. Congrats!

 

Well' date=' that's because I don't buy the other half of the limitation in this case. You can't be *totally* against something *some* of the time. That's like being sort of pregnant or finding out that a store that's open 24 hours isn't open 24 hours in a row ($1 to Steven Wright).[/quote']

I'm with Von on this one; the frequency is based on how often the situation comes up, not how often you abide by it. You can have a 100% total comittment to never killing humans; but if you're okay with killing non-humans, and you spend a lot of time fighting aliens/demons/whatever, then the limitation may come up less often than Very Common. How frequent will vary with different campaigns. OTOH, you can have a Strong or even Moderate committment to never taking any kind of life whatsoever; so it occurs Very Common, but the intensity is less than Total.

 

One other observation: I wouldn't generally say that being a vegetarian in and of itself is limiting enough to be worth any points. But a committment to avoid killing even non-sentient life certainly ups the frequency of the Disad.

[Shaft]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

One important difference between a moderate, strong, or total code according to the book is how rational the person is when faced with the situation.

 

Moderate: The code will decide their choice of action. Somewhat easy to change their mind though; an EGO roll at +5 is required. I picture this as the guy who doesn't beleive in killing, but can be reasonable and make rational decisions based on the situation. He'd take one life to save 50. He most likely will kill the villain stealing the nuclear bomb.

 

Strong: The character takes irrational actions where killing is involved. This is the guy who goes out of his way to not kill. When confronted with a situation where he might have to kill for a very good reason (like the villain and the nuclear bomb example again), he might be able to make himself do it, but isn't going to like it much. Even then, I think he'd only choice that after all other options are exhausted. He'll likely beat himself up over it for a long time, and wonder if there might have been a better way.

 

Total: Totally irrational. Will not kill. Ever. Teammates can't talk him into it. His dedication to not kill is so complete, that he simply cannot be reasoned with or persuaded on the matter. His conviction is unmovable. The EGO roll to overcome it is at a minimum of -5, but is at the GM's discretion whether to allow the roll at all. Personally, I only allow exceptions to a total code in extraordinary circumstances, like kill the villain or the world is destroyed kind of thing. This guy not only wouldn't kill the villain stealing the bomb, but he'd probably step in front of the bullet if a teammate tried to kill him, or stop his teammate in some other manner. He'd prefer to find another way to stop the villain.

 

Like others have said, a solid definition of the code is very important. For example, if a player tells me that his character would have no issue killing invading aliens, and I have a game world where such events are common, the I'd reduce the frequency on the disadvantage. If a target being "irredemably evil" voids the limitation, then I'd reduce the disad proportionally to how common an "iredeemably evil" trait is in my world.

 

Well put! Have some rep for your clarity.

[Shaft]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

If you do not really define it, lets assume you mean sentient beings, in that case you will not kill or allow to be killed anyone according the the defintion. The problem seems on how to define the frequency here: either is how often the situation arizes or broad is the choice of things you will not kill.

 

...In this particular case I Think Mechwarrior should have attempted to stop the killing, since if we use the basic default, he still has a total code against killing.

 

But he should define his disads better, but he is a D&D player ;-)

 

In his defense, the subject of hell-bent extradimensional alien demons never came up. As soon as it did, he very quickly decided that his Code applied to all sentient beings. He didn't have an opportunity to stop Sentinel from killing the aliens since Sentinel didn't offer any time for debating before pulling the pin on those explosives and tossing them into the room.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

When confronted with a situation where the only way to stop the antagonist is to try to kill him then. On his head may it be.

 

Captain America and Superman both possess power and or experience enough to stop them. Our characters may not.

 

QM

[Trebuchet]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

For me it's an issue of both genre and the specific character with the Disad. I play two super (Zl'f and Justicar) who both have CvK (Total) who both have that level for the same reason - they are deeply religious (Justicar is a Catholic priest). But neither character would have trouble killing demons, might well balk at killing aliens, eat meat, and would not kill a human being deliberately for anything. (Zl'f was highly traumatized in an adventure recently when she staked a vampire even though it was trying to kill her and a teammate; even the undead came too close to the "human" line for her to feel comfortable killing it. It bothered her for weeks.) I base both their CvK on their religious convictions; a non-religious type with CvK might well base it on entirely different reasoning such as pacifism. For me CvK isn't about the points; it's a central aspect of a hero (or villain!) with it.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

For me it's an issue of both genre and the specific character with the Disad. I play two super (Zl'f and Justicar) who both have CvK (Total) who both have that level for the same reason - they are deeply religious (Justicar is a Catholic priest). But neither character would have trouble killing demons' date=' might well balk at killing aliens, eat meat, and would not kill a human being deliberately for anything. (Zl'f was highly traumatized in an adventure recently when she staked a vampire even though it was trying to kill her and a teammate; even the undead came too close to the "human" line for her to feel comfortable killing it. It bothered her for weeks.) I base both their CvK on their religious convictions; a non-religious type with CvK might well base it on entirely different reasoning such as pacifism. For me CvK isn't about the points; it's a central aspect of a hero (or villain!) with it.[/quote']

So just for comparison purposes, what's the Frequency of their CvK (humans)?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

So just for comparison purposes' date=' what's the Frequency of their CvK (humans)?[/quote']Zl'f: Common

 

Justicar: Common

 

They're Common for different reasons, though. Zl'f because she is a higher-end PC who often acts in high stakes (often world-saving) adventures and killing the überbaddie might be critically important to saving the world or significant portion thereof. Justicar is in a much grittier street-level supers campaign where the temptation (and opportunity) to kill the bad guys is presented far more often.

 

Zl'f had a lot of emotional problems after killing the vampire (I think she would have suffered from nightmares for weeks) whereas Justicar wouldn't have even blinked at killing a vampire. They're already dead; and evil to boot. Things like vampires are exactly why he figures the Almighty granted him his "holy" powers. (Among other "cleric-like" powers he possesses, Justicar can literally Detect supernatural evil.)

[Alverant]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I think that I will be the first of many to proclaim that a person with a Total Code vs Killing would have never pressed the button in the first place, much less even accepted to carry the trigger. I also, respectfully, submit that the casualness with which the player triggered the lethal device without any regard for what it might do is poor roleplaying for a character with a code vs killing, and "I'm sorry, I didn't know the bomb that I knew was implanted in his brain but thought that it might not have been was actually there when it went off" is a poor defense. It's like loading a gun with bullets that you think might be duds and still pulling the trigger and being surprised when the gun goes off as you point it at someone.

 

I also find it unlikely that Doc Destroyer would have been taken out by a fluke like that, but that is a discussion for another forum.

 

Actually my character only had a moderate CvK. I know this is a topic about total, but I'm a realist when it comes to the personalities I play. I know I will never face situations they do so I give them some flexibility.

 

Now he and another character were each given a trigger. We were ordered to push the button if Dr.D betrayed us. We were chosen because out of the group we were most likely to follow through on this order (the others either had stronger CvK or too new to be trusted by UNTIL). The other character didn't think the buttons would work either. Thinking it was disabled was reasonable since Dr.D knew about the bomb and said he removed it. Now is Dr.D one to gloat if he's not 100% sure about something? Basically we had it on good authority it was a futile gesture. Turned out we were wrong.

[Bud Gray]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

This discussion has given me a lot to consider next time my turn comes around again to run Champions for our Sunday group. Not just for CvK but for any psych lim. Thanks for all this good input.

 

I have a question though. I always tell my players that all the character automatically have "Reluctance to Kill" as an automatic disad for 0 points. I believe that's pretty standard for the superhero genre. But now I wondering, based on some of the discussion here, if I shouldn't make it a Moderate CvK and give them all points for it. After all, what really is the difference between Reluctant to Kill and a Moderate CvK? Do you think that seems reasonable?

[Shaft]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Actually my character only had a moderate CvK. I know this is a topic about total, but I'm a realist when it comes to the personalities I play. I know I will never face situations they do so I give them some flexibility.

 

Now he and another character were each given a trigger. We were ordered to push the button if Dr.D betrayed us. We were chosen because out of the group we were most likely to follow through on this order (the others either had stronger CvK or too new to be trusted by UNTIL). The other character didn't think the buttons would work either. Thinking it was disabled was reasonable since Dr.D knew about the bomb and said he removed it. Now is Dr.D one to gloat if he's not 100% sure about something? Basically we had it on good authority it was a futile gesture. Turned out we were wrong.

 

My apologies: given that the code versus killing was moderate, I retract my statement about the poor role-playing. I think a moderate CvK can be permitted to try and take out Dr Destroyer as he tries to destroy the world.

 

I still don't think the Doc should have been outdone so easily though...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Apropos of nothing at this point, but I just remembered something else characters with CvKs shouldn't do, from the experiences of one of my PCs: Do NOT target obvious vulnerabilities. A PC fireblasted Icicle once ... that got hairy. Fortunately, he was rich and could pay for the hospital stay.

[Shaft]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Apropos of nothing at this point' date=' but I just remembered something else characters with CvKs shouldn't do, from the experiences of one of my PCs: Do NOT target obvious vulnerabilities. A PC fireblasted Icicle once ... that got hairy. Fortunately, he was rich and could pay for the hospital stay.[/quote']

 

Combining called shots to the head with RKAs and ranged offensive strike maneuvers that add 4DCs "to get the Stun bonuses" fall into your caveat too, I think.

[assault]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Apropos of nothing at this point' date=' but I just remembered something else characters with CvKs shouldn't do, from the experiences of one of my PCs: Do NOT target obvious vulnerabilities. A PC fireblasted Icicle once ... that got hairy. Fortunately, he was rich and could pay for the hospital stay.[/quote']

 

Eww.

 

I regard targeting vulnerabilities as one of the key ways of defeating bad guys. I would most offended if I saw a PC deliberately refraining from doing this, unless they a truly hardcore non-violent type.

 

Of course, the probability of PCs targeting vulnerabilities should be built into all scenarios, just to prevent nasty little surprises like this. Or cause them, if the GM thinks that would be interesting.

 

*My* CVK characters aren't going to refrain from targeting vulnerabilities any time soon... None of them enjoy being defeated, and usually that's the only way to win.

[Phil]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I think the previous thread highlighting the need to combine frequency with severity is right. However, I do think supers games can tend to fly fast and light with the CvK concept. To my mind, someone with CvK (total, always) will not only not kill, he should not engage in any activity which may foreseeably and directly lead to a death being taken. So they'd drive a car, but not use any power which can inflict Body damage, including incidental knockback.

 

Then again, it's cheap and easy for such a character to then take a whole load of STUN-only powers or Mental powers. Which kinda devalues the CvK. My approach favours the SAS and M&M one, which rules things like CvK as nothing more than a personality trait, worth zero points. Your Mileage WILL Vary

[Bloodstone]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I would use the term "no lethal attacks". A 1/2 d6 RKA has no real likeliness of killing anyone. A 15d6 normal attack' date=' on the other hand, is potentially lethal. I get very tired of plaeysr whose characterst toss huge attacks against unknown commodities and excuse their actions with "but it's not a KILLING attack!"[/quote']

 

I'd like to point out I have a character with a Strong CvK that has blood on his hands from using 8d6 normal attacks in a game where 12-16 DC attacks were the norm. I didn't know the Pulling Your Punch rules at the time and I figured 8d6 was low enough to be safe to use on a unarmored mook.

 

Exceptional rolls, while improbably, do crop up at the worst possible times on occasion

 

As I am prone to say "This shit never happens to Spiderman!"... which is why I will gladly put up with the "but it's not a KILLING attack!" argument from time to time, especially when players overestimate their opponents defenses...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I regard targeting vulnerabilities as one of the key ways of defeating bad guys. I would most offended if I saw a PC deliberately refraining from doing this, unless they a truly hardcore non-violent type.

 

Of course, the probability of PCs targeting vulnerabilities should be built into all scenarios, just to prevent nasty little surprises like this. Or cause them, if the GM thinks that would be interesting.

 

If the GM stacks the deck so there is no possibility the character can kill an opponent, should this not logically reduce the frequency aspect of the disadvantage? How often must that character choose to avoid killing an opponent at all, much less be disadvantaged by that choice?

 

*My* CVK characters aren't going to refrain from targeting vulnerabilities any time soon... None of them enjoy being defeated' date=' and usually that's the only way to win.[/quote']

 

Perhaps such characters more logically have a 0 point Aversion to Killing, if winning is more important to them than their code vs killing. Now, if it's been made quite obvious that the target can take the hit without risk of permanent injury, that's a different story entirely, but then we get back to "where's the disadvantage if the character is never at risk of killing an opponent".

 

I'd like to point out I have a character with a Strong CvK that has blood on his hands from using 8d6 normal attacks in a game where 12-16 DC attacks were the norm. I didn't know the Pulling Your Punch rules at the time and I figured 8d6 was low enough to be safe to use on a unarmored mook.

 

Exceptional rolls, while improbably, do crop up at the worst possible times on occasion

 

As I am prone to say "This shit never happens to Spiderman!"... which is why I will gladly put up with the "but it's not a KILLING attack!" argument from time to time, especially when players overestimate their opponents defenses...

 

I'd put that lucky strike in the same category as the villain accidentally falling off a building. The character made an effort to restrain his attacks, but it wasn't enough. From a role playing perspective, it would seem reasonable he would be even more reluctant to hit an unknown target hard after that experience. To me, it makes sense that a CvK character would be reluctant to attack at full power unless he knows his target has the defenses to survive the hit. That's not to say the character would never make an error in judgement in this regard, but wildly blasting offf 12+d6 of normal damage seems no more in keeping with a CvK than tossing out a 1/2d6 KA.

 

I'd also add that, in my games, an issue arising from lack of rules knowledge would generally be open for retcon, if not addressed before it happens (eg. "You sure you want to use the full 8d6 without pulling your punch - this guy's got no obvious enhanced defenses.")