If they get better, is it actually murder?

[Kevin Schultz]

OK - in context, the PbEM I'm currently has an 80's slasher flick thing going on. It's still Champions, but the a villian is emulating the horror genre: wielding a chainsaw, wearing a hocky mask, having zombie minions, etc. It's a Silver Age game, but this guy seems to be the 'crazy serial killer' type. (ie, he's killed one of the PC's already - it ended up being a mental illusion of the PC, but the intent was clearly there.)

 

My character does not have a complete (-20) CvK. Instead, she has the lesser "Prefers not to kill" (-15). Now, if the villian actually has horror powers a la Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street, he should be able to come back from the dead. Thus, my question: would this actually count as killing someone if you know they're just going to get back up in a couple of minutes/days/weeks/in time for the next sequel?

 

My guess is, legally speaking, you can't actually murder someone who can self-ressurrect; at best, it's aggrivated assualt and/or ATTEMPTED murder. However, attempted murder is punishing intent - if you know they can't actually die, then it doesn't seem to actually be murder. It's like knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that an ER team will save this person's life, no matter how hard you beat on them. Even if the person flatlines on the operating table, they really aren't dead until they can't be brought back by medical science; and if they can bring themselves back, then they aren't ever actually dead.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

I would say at the very least, until you see it happen, you don't KNOW that they can come back, and it would be murder. If you get arrested, and they do show back up later, you'd probably be released.

 

And the horror schtick isn't always reliable. If it's the last in the series, they don't come back. For all you know, you're part of Zombie Chainsaws VII, the last in the series. Or it might be ten years before the next one. Or maybe he has a power that can bring him back, but it only works 9 times, like a cat. What # is he on? Are you sure?

 

And besides, he's a villain. They ALL can come back from the dead. Still, you don't go around TRYING to get them in "No one could survive that!" situations.

 

Find another way to stop him. Maybe there's a mystical way to stop him - bind him to something, etc. If he truly is representing horror films, maybe there's a tie in there. Find the writer who's powering the villain and stop him. Or find a screenwriter to end the story. Or enchant a movie camera to record him, then lock the film away.

 

If you are truly in a Silver Age game with a serial killer who can only be stopped - perhaps only temporarily - by killing him - you're not in a Silver Age game anymore. Talk to the GM.

[Narratio]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

If it's true Silver Age 4 colour, all you can do is capture the bad guy. That said, it's possible that you can set it up so he "accidentally" kills himself. The villain disappears into the quicksand, falls into bottomless pit etc. Think of the old Spectre or Solomon Grundy stories.

[John T]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Attempted murder is still a crime, and killing someone who can come back from the dead would probably still be murder. You do, after all, have to kill someone for the power to work. I assume that any Champions game in which supers have been present for some time would have laws covering such a possibility.

 

There's also a subtle distinction between Psych Lim: Code vs Killing (whatever the degree), and Psych Lim: Will Not Murder, at least in my games. YGMMV

[McCoy]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Yep, attempted murder sounds right to me.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

The laws against murder in our world don't really cover coming back from the dead so the legal question is impossible to answer.

 

On another note, as you pointed out this guy is an 80s style slasher flick monster so he's not appropriate for Silver Age in the sense of either comics era or genre.

 

Even more seriously his zombie minions are absolutely verboten by the 1954 Comics Code:

 

Scenes dealing with' date=' or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.[/quote']

 

Thus I submit that he must be erased from existence for breaking the code, unable even to exist as a dream, hoax or imaginary story.

[Edsel]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

The following may or may not be very useful to you but I thought It'd be interesting to see another take on these sorts of disadvantages.

 

Here is the write-up for the Prefers Not To Kill disadvantage from the Master List of Limitations.

Prefers Not To Kill

Common, Moderate: 10 Points

Type: Psychological Limitation

Description: This one indicates that the character is willing to use lethal force when necessary -- but that is still very, very rare in the character's opinion. The character does have moral objections to killing, but realizes that sometimes it may be necessary. Such a character is willing to fight and do injury, but in a moment where the decision is "Kill/Don't Kill", this character will always choose "Don't Kill", unless the situation is such that not killing is clearly the worse of two evils. At that point, the character will not hesitate before killing. In four color superhero games, this Disadvantage should be restricted to Villains. In more lethal settings, such as military campaigns, or post-holocaust scenarios, this might be the default attitude for "good guy" characters. In such cases, the GM should watch the player like a hawk to make sure the Disadvantage is being roleplayed correctly. It should not be used as an excuse for a murderous character.

However you noted that your version of this is a 15-point disadvantage rather than a 10 pointer. The disadvantage Will Not Murder is a 15 pointer.

Will Not “Murder”

Uncommon, Total: 15 Points

Type: Psychological Limitation

Description: The character with this Disadvantage has no qualms about using lethal force in combat. Nor does he hesitate to use "excessive" force (bringing a gun to a knife fight, for example). However, he draws a very distinct line between killing to survive and murder. The character will accept genuine surrender, and won't put an extra shot into a downed opponent "just to make sure", he doesn't fire on non-combatants, and won't make lethal booby-traps, etc. It could be a genuine moral decision on his part, or a superstitious fear that something bad will happen if he kills in cold blood, or even a promise to someone he respects. In four-color superhero games, this disadvantage should be restricted to the more "honorable" Villains (as Real Heroes will never choose killing as a first option). This Disadvantage combines nicely with Honorable or Loyal to the Cause for the "noble villain" archetype. In more lethal settings, such as military campaigns, or post-holocaust scenarios, this might be the default attitude for "good guy" characters.

[Peregrine]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

On another note, as you pointed out this guy is an 80s style slasher flick monster so he's not appropriate for Silver Age in the sense of either comics era or genre.

 

Even more seriously his zombie minions are absolutely verboten by the 1954 Comics Code

 

I have to concur - an '80s-style slasher villain isn't Silver Age/four color, period. Your GM just violated genre, and you have grounds for an out-of-game conversation as to why.

[Psylint]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Actually, you can be charged with murder. Though the precedent is understandably scarce, First Degree Malicious Murder in general, only requires the intent to cause the death of a human being and then having that human being or another human being die (you don't get off on your murder rap if you snipe at your foe and accidentally hit and kill an innocent bystander.) The law in every jurisdiction has a legal definition for what constitutes death (and usually life as well). Legal death generally is the state at which no discernible heart beat or respiration has occurred for a period of time. Since the killer is only going to reconstitute himself for the next sequel, this requirement will often be met.

 

Therein, lies your character's legal defense. That is to say, is the horror killer a "human being"? if not it has not rights and you can kill it with impunity. There are also legal justifications for killing like self defense, defense of others, resisting rape or kidnapping. In those cases, the person accused of murder generally has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they acted in self defense etc.

[transmetahuman]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Putting aside the whole out-of-genre thing, I have a dissenting opinion. If you are truly confident that he'll come back (hard to really be certain, unless the villain gloats and you've seen evidence) - confident enough to bet a man's life on it - and it's really the only way to deal with him, I could see a character deciding it's not really killing/murder. Getting a jury to agree is another matter.

 

But there's the issue of being sure, and whether you know that he resurrects from his remains, and doesn't just materialize elsewhere if "killed". You might just be freeing him to strike elsewhere by killing him. Your best bet is almost certainly to try to capture without killing.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Think of the old Spectre or Solomon Grundy stories.

I don't know that I'd hold up Spectre stories as an example... the character's whole raison d'etre was lethal vengeance, and methods like turning people into lit candles on the ends of your fingers and watching them burn don't exactly come across as accidental.

[Mike Dean]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

A character who prefers not to kill and a villain who may be unstoppable unless you kill him real, real good is a classic setup. Does the hero do what has to be done, even if it means compromising her principles? Non-total disads are made to be broken, but only if the aftermath is roleplayed the right way.

 

It also sounds like this villain might be undead anyway. In virtually every game I've ever played CvK does not apply to dead people who won't sit still.

 

Mike

[David Johnston]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

It is true that there's a Silver Age loophole. "People" who aren't alive, machines, and Solomon Grundy and the like, aren't covered by the CVKs and killing them isn't considered to be illegal. But what real reason do you have to think that this guy is that kind of unkillable monster?

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Hey all - thanks for the responses. In no particular order...

 

 

It is true that there's a Silver Age loophole. "People" who aren't alive' date=' machines, and Solomon Grundy and the like, aren't covered by the CVKs and killing them isn't considered to be illegal. But what real reason do you have to think that this guy is that kind of unkillable monster?[/quote']

 

What is known so far is that the city is being attacked by zombies; ghosts and skeletons are creeping in and out of shadows, and this Michael Meyers wannabe attacked one of the PC groups. He was somehow able to set up the television that they were watching to do the "Hey, I see my house on TV...I see the camera moving towards the front door...I see a hand reach out to open the front door...hey, did someone just open the front door?" thing. The PC's were distracted by zombies breaking in, and the telepath got separated from the rest of the group; then she got chainsaw'd by some guy in a hockey mask.

 

My PC is currently not there - I'm' off with another group, which was investigating an unrelated case, before the zombie invasion began. (Thus, I don't actually know that any of this is going on.) However, my PC is going to find out soon enough, as she's just about to call the other groups on her cell phone to check in. I was planning on having her simply ask hockey-mask guy if he could come back from the dead, and if he said 'yes', she'd start doing things like try to drop a Buick on him. (ie, stuff you wouldn't normally do to a martial artist because they're fragile.)

 

And the horror schtick isn't always reliable. If it's the last in the series, they don't come back. For all you know, you're part of Zombie Chainsaws VII, the last in the series. Or it might be ten years before the next one. Or maybe he has a power that can bring him back, but it only works 9 times, like a cat. What # is he on? Are you sure?

 

That's a very good point; I also don't actually KNOW if he has this power to begin with, as the PC's haven't fought him before or have evern (really) identified him yet. Thus, at this point, it's still hypothetical until the character shows up at the fight and asks the pertinent question.

 

And besides, he's a villain. They ALL can come back from the dead. Still, you don't go around TRYING to get them in "No one could survive that!" situations.

 

True - but this is genre-within-genre; superheroes are not necessarily aware of the superheroic genre, and thus can't count on the writer/editor to ressurrect a character. However, in this case, the PC's are cognizant that the villian is (at the least) aping the horror genre. Thus, it seems reasonable to think that if he can emulate one aspect of the genre ( chainsaws as valid melee weapon and zombie hoardes), then he might also have other genre-applicable powers as well.

 

I have to concur - an '80s-style slasher villain isn't Silver Age/four color, period. Your GM just violated genre, and you have grounds for an out-of-game conversation as to why.

 

Well, yeah. But the character was successfully introduced in an over-the-top/vaguely goofy/"I'm making fun of myself" sort of way; Also, the character that "died" was the team telepath, who has zilch defenses whatsoever. Had anyone else been hit, they would have just been injured. This is a Teen Champions game, and Whistler hasn't yet spent her points on anything but a 'core' (non-multipower) mindreading ability. Thus, she's easily the least combat-effective person in the group.

 

stuff about "Prefers not to Kill" and "Does not Murder"

 

Thanks for the info! it is indeed the -15 point version; so far, I've been playing it like a Total Does not kill, but won't get too upset if she 'breaks' her code. Thus, she'll go to extreme lengths not to kill a villian, but if she has to, she can. This is an attitude that goes along with the following:

 

1. She's a superhero brick - she doesn't have to worry too much about her offense being her only defense. Thus, she can afford the luxury of using non-lethal attacks in order to subdue a foe. Even if the attacker is striking with lethal force, she's at significantly less risk than the average person, for which most laws are written; thus, to preserve her own life and safety, she doesn't necessarily NEED to use lethal force.

 

2. Legally, it's better for herself and the superhero community at large if superheroes don't kill killing attacks any more than necessary. If she's attempting to subdue a non-murderous villian, then there's no reason to use such an attack.

 

3. Striking to kill is more difficult, psychologically, than striking to stun; thus, while she doesn't have a moral code against killing, she's acknowledged that on a purely emotional level, it's easier for her not to kill; and as she has the defenses (see #1) to back up that decision, she can choose to train herself that way.

 

Because of those reasons, I suppose a better name for her CvK would be "Goes to extremes not to kill" or "tries really hard not to kill", (Common, Severe) as opposed to "prefers not to kill". (Common, Moderate)

 

stuff about why it would be attempted murder

 

Good points, all: by definition, the guy does need to die in order to come back from the dead. I suppose at that point, it would need to be determined if it was self-defense or justifiable homicide or whatever, and then determine if a chracter with a CvK could actually do such a thing. Which is where the conversation seems to be going...

 

It also sounds like this villain might be undead anyway. In virtually every game I've ever played CvK does not apply to dead people who won't sit still.

 

That's another good point that I hadn't thought of; I guess I should add that to my "list of questions Icon will ask the villian when she shows up."

 

"Excuse me, sir. Before you attempt to impale me and my friends on your mechanical phallus there, can you please answer the following questions:

 

1. Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the undead?

2. Are you capable of rising from the grave, rejoining your soul to your mortal coil, or any other form of self-ressurrection?

[Balabanto]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Actually, your problem here is that the law is an ass. Unless an official coroner or someone similar pronounces him dead at the scene, he's not dead.

 

Furthermore, if he's alive, most courts do not accept ressurrection as a viable social option available to anyone, the masses or otherwise. So if Dreadlok shows up in court after Partacel hurls him off the world trade center and he gets impaled on a flagpole at the bottom, chances are, the court will rule that the presence of the fiendish mastermind in the courtroom will render his murder impossible. A judge has license, when presented with the obvious, to dismiss a case immediately, and in such a case, he likely would. You can't try someone for murder with murder victim alive and in the courtroom.

 

Even an INCOMPETENT lawyer could break down those charges, forget about a skilled one like Perry Mason or the like.

[Robyn]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Unless an official coroner or someone similar pronounces him dead at the scene, he's not dead.

 

Furthermore, if he's alive, most courts do not accept ressurrection as a viable social option available to anyone, the masses or otherwise. So if Dreadlok shows up in court after Partacel hurls him off the world trade center and he gets impaled on a flagpole at the bottom, chances are, the court will rule that the presence of the fiendish mastermind in the courtroom will render his murder impossible. A judge has license, when presented with the obvious, to dismiss a case immediately, and in such a case, he likely would.

 

What if Dreadlok shows up with the flagpole still sticking through him, and testifies to waking up on the operating table, sitting up, and wondering why the coroner was doing an autopsy?

[Robyn]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

My character does not have a complete (-20) CvK. Instead' date=' she has the lesser "Prefers not to kill" (-15).[/quote']

 

Is your character a lawyer, though?

 

My guess is' date=' legally speaking,[/quote']

 

Irrelevant, unless your character's CvK is derived from the law; does she regularly consult the law so as to stay within its exact letter while following the spirit of her own desires?

 

This is uncomfortably close to a meta-awareness of her own Disadvantage, combined with deliberately seeking loopholes by which she can avoid it.

[Kevin Schultz]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

Is your character a lawyer, though?

 

The character concept is "best darned superhero a middle-class suburban family can afford," aka "what I would do if I were a superhero." Thus, she has as much training as a single father and his teenaged daughter can reasonably put together themselves. That includes things like legal and ethical training, in the same sense that a police officer would understand the laws surrounding the use of deadly force.

 

She's curently involved in the Explorer program for the local police department, and is in the Future Law Enforcement Officers of America. She plans on majoring in Criminal Justice in college, and afterwards joining the FBI's metahuman task force. Thus, she does have KS: Federal law.

 

This is uncomfortably close to a meta-awareness of her own Disadvantage, combined with deliberately seeking loopholes by which she can avoid it.

 

As a result of her powers manifesting and crippling her (physically abusive) mother, Icon attends weekly family councelling sessions with her father; it was the pyschologist who suggested her father be involved in her training as a way to bridge the gap between them, and help Emma address the abandonment issues she had with her father's seeming inability to stop the cycle of violence. Thus, she is EXTREMELY self-aware of her own thought process, as she is required to articulate it every week to a shrink.

 

Likely, this process that we're going through right now is exactally what she would have done, both with her father, psychologist, and the ethics comitte of the Argus City Special Case Squad (with whoom she has a good relationship - among other things, her father is their sysadmin).

[David Johnston]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

What if Dreadlok shows up with the flagpole still sticking through him' date=' and testifies to waking up on the operating table, sitting up, and wondering why the coroner was doing an autopsy?[/quote']

 

Legally he's no different from anyone else who wakes up on the autopsy table, and there have been a very few such cases. An incorrect diagnosis of death doesn't change the fundamental legal definition of death which is that it is the thing you don't come back from. In fact the whole concept of brain death arose as a result of advances in medical science which meant that what was previously death obviously no longer was. In the case of superhumans it isn't possible to create a reliable standard like that for who is really honest-to-gosh TU instead of just pining for the fjords so if your victim seems to be dead by the time you go to trial they'll proceed on that assumption, but if they later determine that Resurrection Man has payed a visit to your sparring partner, you're probably sprung.

[Mike W]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

OK - in context, the PbEM I'm currently has an 80's slasher flick thing going on. It's still Champions, but the a villian is emulating the horror genre: wielding a chainsaw, wearing a hocky mask, having zombie minions, etc. It's a Silver Age game, but this guy seems to be the 'crazy serial killer' type. (ie, he's killed one of the PC's already - it ended up being a mental illusion of the PC, but the intent was clearly there.)

 

My character does not have a complete (-20) CvK. Instead, she has the lesser "Prefers not to kill" (-15). Now, if the villian actually has horror powers a la Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street, he should be able to come back from the dead. Thus, my question: would this actually count as killing someone if you know they're just going to get back up in a couple of minutes/days/weeks/in time for the next sequel?

 

My guess is, legally speaking, you can't actually murder someone who can self-ressurrect; at best, it's aggrivated assualt and/or ATTEMPTED murder. However, attempted murder is punishing intent - if you know they can't actually die, then it doesn't seem to actually be murder. It's like knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that an ER team will save this person's life, no matter how hard you beat on them. Even if the person flatlines on the operating table, they really aren't dead until they can't be brought back by medical science; and if they can bring themselves back, then they aren't ever actually dead.

 

My take has always been that you can't do anything that could potentially kill an intelligent being. Of course, zombies, and many movie monsters don't count because they are not human(or more accurately lack humanity). Undead and anything that is both not human and irredeemably evil generally doesn't count. So you COULD kill a zombie.

[Dust Raven]

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder?

 

The legal implication of killing/using lethal force against someone who can come back from the dead is different than the moral implications. From a legal standpoint, dead is dead. In one SF story I read, there was a particular criminal who was sentenced to death, but had seven lives. After they killed him, he came back to life and they had to let him go. He had served is sentence after all. And imagine of someone killed him. He could come back to life and testify against his murderer!

 

Morally, it's a massive tangled can of worms. If he comes back to life, are you really killing him? You're taking a life, but since he has more/infinite lives, does the life you take have the same value as one that doesn't come back? Can you put a value on life in general in these circumstances? And this is only of the characters involved realize the villain can come back. Not think he can or believe he can, or even know that he's come back before. But know beyond a doubt that he will come back if they kill him. Anything less than that and it's murder.

 

And then there's the added mix of what if the character was wrong? What if he doesn't come back? How does the character deal with that?

 

Of course, there's also the possibility that this villain isn't even human, or alive in any human sense. That would eliminate murder from a legal standpoint, but what about a moral standpoint? If something isn't legally alive, so can't be murdered, a character may still consider it to be alive, thus killable, and thus murder to kill it.