Code vs Killing (Total)

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

The difference is that vulnerabilities are intended to be taken advantage of. They are the way villains are meant to be defeated.

Agreed. I'll go one step further - if you're giving your villains vulnerabilities that the heroes are prevented from taking advantae of... then they're not really Disads, are they?

 

I see your point here' date=' but part of the decision also was in circumstances I didn't elaborate. Because of where this was going on -- escape was a very limited option -- I figured at least three more of us were [i']certainly[/i] dead unless we could put the thing down; only two others could, in my mind, plausibly escape. I numbered my character among the certainly-dead, but that wasn't important to me; it was more a Loylaty trigger, in defense of friends.

Yeah, I figured there were circumstances. (It's an RPG; of course there are circumstances!) I'm still not sure protecting friends would be enough for me personally, unless the character also has Loyalty as a Psych Lim or something. But depends on the character and the campaign, YMMV, etc.

 

For me the real issue is that CvK is about roleplaying. It's not about the GM shouting "Gotcha!"

 

If a character is diligent about not using excessive force, doesn't deliberately attempt to kill his or her opponents, and gives the "I'm not going to kill you because I'm better than you" speech when appropriate, they're fine in my eyes. They've paid for their points. It's a roleplaying thing.

 

I don't think they should need to jump through tactical hoops all that often.

Well put - repped.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

The actual killing isn't necessarily the booby trap. The trap is the "and the world hates you" stuff.

 

"Nobody could have survived that" is entirely routine.

 

I'd say even without everyone hating you, engineering things so the *only* way you can win definitely kills the opponent, in contradiction to genre conventions and psych limits? Railroading. Adding the world hating you is just further insult.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I don't totally agree with this.

 

For starters, while the "real" Silver Age was influenced by the Comics Code, which outlawed (most) vampires and so on, it would be reasonable enough to stake one if it showed up in a Silver Age game. Similarly demons, zombies (actually undead ones, at least) and robots would all be legitimate to physically destroy, even if they are notionally sentient.

 

"Not alive" = "can't be killed" = not covered by CvK.

 

Obviously you need to be careful not to make mistakes...

 

Sorry, I meant all opponents for whom CvK applies. Obviously, undead and robots weren't subject to this then ( even in cases where arguably they should be ).

 

Perhaps rephrased: the compulsory violation of a CvK puts one outside the silver age genre.

[assault]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Perhaps rephrased: the compulsory violation of a CvK puts one outside the silver age genre.

 

That's fair enough.

[Squall]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I don't have much to add -- at this point -- but I just wanted to chime in and say this is a neat discussion. Cool thread. Two thumbs up.

[Valerious]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

For me the real issue is that CvK is about roleplaying. It's not about the GM shouting "Gotcha!"

 

If a character is diligent about not using excessive force, doesn't deliberately attempt to kill his or her opponents, and gives the "I'm not going to kill you because I'm better than you" speech when appropriate, they're fine in my eyes. They've paid for their points. It's a roleplaying thing.

 

I don't think they should need to jump through tactical hoops all that often.

 

I'd like to add my amen to that as well.

 

I recently had a problem in a game I am running where some characters really weren't roleplaying their CvKs. I was having to point their codes out often, since they didn't really seem to effect much. They had an accidental death, but I wasn't sure it made much of an impression.

 

But the problem got fixed in a way I was very happy with. I put them up against a superstrong villain with a CvK(they're not neccesarily just for heroes!), who, at a critical moment in the fight, pulled his punch against a member of the group who's defenses he was uncertain of. As a result, they were able to rally and take him down, when it easily could have gone the other way. When questioned about it, the villain pointed out that he really could have knocked him into next week, but he couldn't be sure if the hero could take it, and killing wasn't something he was willing to do. He explained that he had to hold back, although he threatened he wouldn't make that mistake a second time. An NPC contact reiterated the point, emphasising how even this villain was careful with his powers, even though it cost him the fight, and there was a nice, well roleplayed discussion of power and responsibility.

 

They got the point, and it mostly happened naturally in the game(I did give at least one GM lecture, but the game events had far greater effect). Since then, there's been some great roleplay in the group regarding the CvK's, particularly around the interplay between the characters that have them and those that don't. It's great when those things can work themselves out ingame. Sometimes an example helps a lot.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

I put them up against a superstrong villain with a CvK(they're not neccesarily just for heroes!)

Great object lesson. Also a good point; CvKs are harder to maintain when all your opponents are casual killers.

[Alverant]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

But the problem got fixed in a way I was very happy with. I put them up against a superstrong villain with a CvK(they're not neccesarily just for heroes!)' date=' who, at a critical moment in the fight, pulled his punch against a member of the group who's defenses he was uncertain of.[/quote']

 

Two questions, what type supervillain would have a CvK (apart from the 'gentleman thief' archtype)? And did your heroes treat him better when he was defeated?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

what type supervillain would have a CvK (apart from the 'gentleman thief' archtype)?

In a bronze or silver-age campaign? Lots of them. Probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the villains in CKC have CvK.

[Alverant]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

In a bronze or silver-age campaign? Lots of them. Probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the villains in CKC have CvK.

 

CvK for villains is a different story. That would mean they don't take hostages, threaten innocents, and are careful fighting authorities (not only so they don't kill anyone, but also the stray energy blast didn't do any harm). So I'd disagree that bronze/silver age villains had CvK, they just weren't as successful with the K. Let's face it, if you're threatening to pull an asteroid into the Earth, you have no problems with killing.

[Mentor]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

We have generally chosen to define Code vs Killing to apply to humans and very similar humanoids. Demons, animals, undead, and creatures which don't appear humanoid are not automatic.

 

Some players define their character's Disad even more stringently, but that is role playing.

[Valerious]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

CvK for villains is a different story. That would mean they don't take hostages' date=' threaten innocents, and are careful fighting authorities (not only so they don't kill anyone, but also the stray energy blast didn't do any harm). So I'd disagree that bronze/silver age villains had CvK, they just weren't as successful with the K. Let's face it, if you're threatening to pull an asteroid into the Earth, you have no problems with killing.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure I completely agree with that; if they had a total code, maybe they do take precautions like that. But this guy's code wasn't total. I think it was moderate, if I recall correctly.

 

Just for clarification, he wasn't the supervillain, pull an asteroid to the earth type. In fact, I wouldn't even really classify him as a supervillain, more of a regular powered villain, albeit a pretty beefy one. As to the archetype, he was a hired mercanary. He was in it for the money. Need to rough someone up who owes you money? He'll do that, for a percentage. Need someone for a little smash and grab? He's your man if you have the money. Need a bodyguard? He'll take the job. Kidnap someone? If the money's right and he's in a good mood, he might do it, but he doesn't want to know what you plan to do with them(I figure that's an appropriate attitude for a villain with a moderate CvK). But you need someone killed? Call someone else. He won't do that. He's good enough at what he does, that he can afford to pick and choose his jobs.

 

The players ended up really liking that villain, and their characters had a slightly uneasy respect for him, although his choice of employers made him unquestionably a villain, so they did put him in jail. But of course, he did break out later, and they met a few more times. I played it that he loved facing off with them, because it afforded a rare opportunity to really unload on someone, and push himself to his limits. They seized on his CvK as what they perceived as an honorable quality and every time they'd meet the heroes would try to turn him to the side of good(and they'd happily point out his employer's killings), although evil just paid too much for that to ever happen.

 

In the end, it was a stronger psych lim about money that kept him a villain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

After some thought....

 

For me the real issue is that CvK is about roleplaying. It's not about the GM shouting "Gotcha!"

 

If a character is diligent about not using excessive force, doesn't deliberately attempt to kill his or her opponents, and gives the "I'm not going to kill you because I'm better than you" speech when appropriate, they're fine in my eyes. They've paid for their points. It's a roleplaying thing.

 

The key here is that diligence in not using lethal force. It's not good enough, to me, that the character doesn't use attacks he is certain will kill his opponents. He must also err on the side of caution and not use attacks which MAY, based on his experience with the opponent, be deadly. Assuming everyone has 20+ defenses with no evidence is not approrpiate to a character with CvK.

 

There are genre elements' date=' like the taking advantage of vulnerability thing, that can potentially conflict. Frankly, I don't think they should, and personally, I will always play my PCs as though they don't.[/quote']

 

I think it's very possible for the character to know IceMaiden is vulnerable tro fire, and therefore fear his FlameBolt may kill her. If he has a CvK, this should cause him to refrain from using the FlameBolt. By contrast, if the opponebt shrugs off everything the heros have thrown at him, except for a heat blast which staggered him momentarily, the character is far more justified in using the FlameBlast - it appears the target can take the hit, and that this is the only way to injure him.

 

If the GM has created a character who has 75 Defenses, not vs fire, 5d6 BOD Susc from Fire and 2x BOD from fire, such that the choice is "use attacks which do no damage" or "kill him with his weak spot", then I would say the GM is the problem.

 

Let me pose an uglier example. The enemy is a Demon. He has possessed a small child. The Demon adds substantial defenses to the child for Stun, but you will still inflict BOD on the child - she will die when the demon leaves if you inflict enough damage. The CvK character would need to find another way to defeat the demon - killing the child should be unacceptable. It is possible the character may determine that there is a need to VIOLATE the CVK, but he should not get a free ride.

 

It is the player's responsibility to RP that CvK by avoiding actions which would risk the child's life - and that includes preventing teammates from killing her.

 

It's the GM's responsibility to ensure the demon can be defeated WITHOUT risk to the child. Simply tossing out the demon with "Kill the child or let the demon win" is unacceptable, in my view.

 

The difference is that vulnerabilities are intended to be taken advantage of. They are the way villains are meant to be defeated.

 

In other words, it is bad roleplaying not to take advantage of them.

 

Change the disad from CvK to Honourable - never takes unfair advantage. Is it still bad role playing not to take advantage of those vulnerabiluties?

 

Having taking of advantage of vulnerabilities being counterposed to CvKs is a "Gotcha". Either way' date=' the PCs will be hosed.[/quote']

 

You seem to assume that the characters can win only if they take advantage of those vulnerabilities. Does every character who has a vulnerability in your games possess immunity to all other forms of attack?

 

In my view, that's a big stretch. Sometimes, a vulnerability may be the opponent's only achilles heel, and essential to a victory. Other times, there are other ways to win and taking advantage of the vulnerability may risk a fatality.

 

We may simply have a difference in game styles - if vulnerabilities in your game are typically the only way to take out the opponent, and are never potentially lethal to the opponent, we clearly do.

 

Personally' date=' I would be very annoyed by that, since I usually struggle getting enough Disads together. It would be particularly difficult having to come up with a replacement Disad after crossing CvK off my character sheet in the middle of a game...[/quote']

 

If you don't want to play it, don't take it. 20 points should create some issues for the character. However, in my games at least, a player who plays his character's disad's appropriately is not "hosed" for doing so. A player who simply makes up excuses for ignoring his disad's, on the other hand, should be asked to buy those disad's down or off.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

But the problem got fixed in a way I was very happy with. I put them up against a superstrong villain with a CvK(they're not neccesarily just for heroes!)' date=' who, at a critical moment in the fight, pulled his punch against a member of the group who's defenses he was uncertain of. As a result, they were able to rally and take him down, when it easily could have gone the other way.[/quote']

 

Thanks for that example. I certainly learned my lesson!

 

CvKs invite defeat!!

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Thanks for that example. I certainly learned my lesson!

 

CvKs invite defeat!!

 

We wouldn't want our disadvantages to put us at any disadvantage, would we? That would make them disadvantageous!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Heck, in our campaign we have entire supervillain teams with CvK. Even IRL many criminals draw a careful line between committing property crimes such as burglary or car theft and committing murder or rape. It's hardly a stretch to think superhuman ones would have some of the same qualms (If nothing else, to avoid "shoot on sight" orders being issued against them to the campaign's PRIMUS-equivalent and heroes without a CvK). Probably the majority of my supervillains have CvK to some degree; although I think only one or two have Total.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

We wouldn't want our disadvantages to put us at any disadvantage' date=' would we? That would make them disadvantageous! [/quote']

 

So Hugh, is your disadvantage being unable to tell when tongue is being placed firmly in cheek? We need a sarcasm font.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

So Hugh' date=' is your disadvantage being unable to tell when tongue is being placed firmly in cheek? We need a sarcasm font. [/quote']

 

More inability to resist a comment. I agree on the Font issue.

[assault]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

The key here is that diligence in not using lethal force. ... Assuming everyone has 20+ defenses with no evidence is not approrpiate to a character with CvK.

 

Yes. This is the routine, every single session version of the Disad.

 

I think it's very possible for the character to know IceMaiden is vulnerable tro fire, and therefore fear his FlameBolt may kill her. If he has a CvK, this should cause him to refrain from using the FlameBolt.

 

OK, but I would expect this to be rare.

 

and that includes preventing teammates from killing her.

 

Which is interesting, since I would normally expect all characters to have the Disad. I personally don't encourage Wolverine clones.

 

Change the disad from CvK to Honourable - never takes unfair advantage. Is it still bad role playing not to take advantage of those vulnerabiluties?

 

Probably. I have never actually seen this disad in play.

 

You seem to assume that the characters can win only if they take advantage of those vulnerabilities.

 

It's one of the most common ways. Punching the bad guy in the face usually only works against mad scientists and theme villains, and then only after you've neutralised their Cosmic Doohickey.

 

We may simply have a difference in game styles - if vulnerabilities in your game are typically the only way to take out the opponent, and are never potentially lethal to the opponent, we clearly do.

 

I tend to use Giant Radioactive Monsters (who have vulnerabilities), and normals with gadgets (who don't). Scenarios are mostly about what happens after they pound you into pulp in your first encounter.

 

If you don't want to play it, don't take it.

 

I regard it as mandatory. My characters don't kill. Unless the GM sets it up so they do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing (Total)

 

Which is interesting' date=' since I would normally expect all characters to have the Disad. I personally don't encourage Wolverine clones.[/quote']

 

You mean guys who take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses to win, regardless of whether that may prove fatal to the opponent?

 

I regard it as mandatory. My characters don't kill. Unless the GM sets it up so they do.

 

I think we differ in our view of what constitutes a GM setup. In my game, if you utilize lethal force indiscriminately and the result is that you kill a target against whom lethal force is (surprise!) lethal, I don't believe you have been set up.

 

Now, if my game runs 17 sessions with no opponents who can even be scratched wiith anything less than lethal force, and I then toss in a soft target who sure looks like those last 17 villains/groups, and a shot that wouldn't have scuffed the shoes of prior opponents takes this one's head off, then I would agree you have been set up. However, my games don't come with opponents who all have massive defenses. They come with a variety of challenges, not all of which will be solved by having the biggest energy bolt, or the SFX to which the opponent is specifically vulnerable.