Not Role Playing Disadvantages.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by RadeFox

IMO< Simply forcing a rewrite of the character mid-storyline is the poorest choice. It will smash a lot of suspension of disbelief for the players, and ruin a lot of continuity in the chronicle.

 

Granted, a change may be in order, but PLAY the change out. Arrest the killer and his 'innocent' accomplice. Put 'em on trial, give 'em a sentence of 'enforced' community service (new disad to replace the defunct CVK!), complete with a tether if need be. The looks on the errant players face would be priceless, when he realizes the consequences of his (in)actions!

Nobody said mid-storlyine. That's when the unluck or... nothing... happens. Consequences are going to happen whether the character is played according to their psych lims or not.

[Blue Jogger]

On the other side of Code vs. Killing...

 

Madman, known for killing superheroes, excapes once again from jail to kill the latest batch of superheroes.

 

A bloody battle ensues, one of the heroes nearly dies and sees the spirits of the fallen tell him, "You can give up now and rest in peace or you can get up and Fight for Freedom." Of course, being a hero, he chooses to return to battle.

 

Now the battle is over. The hero is now dead tired. (pun intended) Assuming he can catch Madman, what is the hero with 20 points of Code vs. Killing suppose to do?

[RadeFox]

Code vs Killing does not mean a character CANNOT kill. It just means that he is inherently driven NOT too. But in some situations, perceptions and long held tenets waver, as above. The Hero may choose to end the reign of Madman's terror. And he would be justified in doing so.

Then the player has to deal with his own internal demons over the act. Perhaps he has nightmares, or he becomes edgy and irratible, projecting his anger at himself for a moment of weakness/determination outward at those near him.

He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling. Whatever the case, the death will affect him for some time, till he can come to grips with it and move on.

[AnotherSkip]

I woulda Had the "head shot" miss the target and hit him........

[Hugh Neilson]

Getting beyond the CVK itself, there are really two issues here.

 

First, were the player and the GM on the same page about what this disad means? I find some players, most commonly inexperienced players or players not looking to role play, pick disad's frim the sidebar. "Code vs Killing - 20 points - OK, 130 points to go" I always try to sit players down and say, "OK, based on this disad, here's where I think the character is coming from" A 20 point C vs K is Superman/Batman - "no way; killing is always wrong; even if he's killed millions, it would be wrong for him to die for it" The player may say "OK, I don;t see it that strong, here's what I see" and we re-tally the points accordingly. Maybe the charcater really has "Believes criminals deserve to die". He won't pull the trigger himself, but would lobby for the death penalty in many cases. Maybe he would pull the trigger himself.

 

When it turns out we weren't on the same page, I attribute that to failure to communicate - at least as much my fault as the player's. So we discuss it, and the player should probably revise the character to reduce or remove the C vs K and add a more appropriate disadvantage.

 

Second, is it a player who just doesn't care? Disad's are only there to build up the character. "I'd never have taken a flaw if I thought the GM was going to EXPLOIT it!". Some care about the game, just not the RP. Just wants as much power as he can grab and sees the game as an exercise in tactics, for example. ANSER: See p 346 f 5e - the character roleplays poorly (never remembers his disad's, for example) so -1 xp. Note that he's not growing as fast as his teammates (assuming they role play better) so, to meet his goal of upping his power, he'll probably try to play his disad's.

 

If he just doesn't care about the game, maybe he should be asked to leave, but that's extreme. How many people build a Champions character if they don't actually care to play the game?

 

BACK TO THE SPECIFICS

 

My first thought here is "some hero!". Maybe when the whole group is Hunted by law enforcement for numerous legitimate reasons, we're not "Champions" any more. Sounds like the two players noted are up for membership in the Knights of the Dinner Table.

 

In game consequences such as disad mutation has been discussed by lots of other posters. One thing hasn't, however. What about the other players? Have they had anything to say about their teammates' actions? Do any of them have codes vs killing (likely yes if this is a 4 colour game!). Are they just standing idly by?

 

Too often, players, even good players, will say "well, he's a PC so we have to put up with his behaviour". 25 points of "Believes PC's can do whatever they feel like"? Paid for "Detect Player Characters"? "DIstinctive Features - "PC" tattooed on forehead? The characters don't know who a PC is - would they but up with that behaviour from an NPC, or would they bring him in? Maybe you've just found a new nemesis for your other player characters, and a nice new Hunted for the Killers.

[Vondy]

I would just make sure that the GM and the player are on the same page in regards to the disad.

 

If the player refuses to get on the same page tell them to select a different disadvantage or LOSE THE POINTS.

 

If that doesn't work... I say go Evil Emperor on them:

 

"Wipe them out... all of them."

[Blue Jogger]

Originally posted by RadeFox

He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling.

 

Don't most superheroes need that?

[Blue Jogger]

Originally posted by RadeFox

He may need to seek therapy, or religious counselling.

 

Don't most superheroes need that?

[PerennialRook]

Ouch... 4d6 unluck... aren't I glad I made another character.

 

Yes, I was the player who held the captive prone to be killed. My bad.

 

In my defence this was my first time ever playing with the HERO system. First session, first encounter, first character.

 

Now that I actually have FRED I understand what actually happened. I was wrong. From what I had understood, CvK meant that I would not kill someone. I also didn't yet understand pulling a punch, and ended up killing several other gang members on accident.

 

Suffice to say, my new character doesn't have a CvK.

 

-Preston

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by PerennialRook

Ouch... 4d6 unluck... aren't I glad I made another character.

 

Yes, I was the player who held the captive prone to be killed. My bad.

 

In my defence this was my first time ever playing with the HERO system. First session, first encounter, first character.

 

Now that I actually have FRED I understand what actually happened. I was wrong. From what I had understood, CvK meant that I would not kill someone. I also didn't yet understand pulling a punch, and ended up killing several other gang members on accident.

 

Suffice to say, my new character doesn't have a CvK.

 

-Preston

I never liked CvK, but then I always preferred Dark Champions, sci-fi or modern gritty settings over classic comic style.

 

My first character was a DnD paladin I converted. He wound up with the GM putting a casual killer and Reputation on him... In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

[CourtFool]

Originally posted by Beowulf

In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

 

"Frailty" anyone?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Beowulf

In the characters defense he only killed those who he detected as evil.

 

I had an NPC a long time ago (in fact I think I should revive him) who was this dual-personality liberal defense attorney in one guise (yeah, cliche, I know) and in his other personality was the Grim Reaper, a deadly assassin of the evil. He had this amulet that would glow on a 14/less for bad guys. If it glowed, he chopped them with a massive supernatural killing attack, otherwise he could only do slight damage. If it glowed, furthermore, he was COMPELLED to kill, whereas if it did not he was compelled NOT to kill.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil

I had an NPC a long time ago (in fact I think I should revive him) who was this dual-personality liberal defense attorney in one guise (yeah, cliche, I know) and in his other personality was the Grim Reaper, a deadly assassin of the evil. He had this amulet that would glow on a 14/less for bad guys. If it glowed, he chopped them with a massive supernatural killing attack, otherwise he could only do slight damage. If it glowed, furthermore, he was COMPELLED to kill, whereas if it did not he was compelled NOT to kill.

 

Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

 

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

[Talon]

Originally posted by CourtFool

"Frailty" anyone?

 

Then it would be "destroyed", not killed.

 

Perennial, glad to see your post. That it was your first Hero game and character makes a world of difference. Many experienced players try to pull off your honest mistake as a metagaming "tactic". Good luck with your new character!

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

 

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

 

And it's REALLY a limit if it means the victim must FEEL guilty, which many psycho-super-criminals will not.

[Kristopher]

That's the kind of power limitation that works in fiction, but rarely works in gaming. It often leads to endless philosophical arguements over the meaning of "guilty," and who is and is not guilty.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher

That's the kind of power limitation that works in fiction, but rarely works in gaming. It often leads to endless philosophical arguements over the meaning of "guilty," and who is and is not guilty.

 

I think if it were defined suitably enough to be interesting and if the player and GM agreed carefully on how it worked it wouldn't be a problem. If it's based on how the victim feels consciously and if the players and GM are mature, it shouldn't be an issue in that instance. Even based on subconscious feelings it shouldn't be a problem if maturity is present. I think it just becomes troublesome if by "guilty" you mean in the legal or moral sense regardless of the person's feelings, and then it becomes to be a sort of "counter-plot" device wherein the GM has to reveal whose actually guilty of a crime through a player's actions, and in that case I think it's very difficult to implement in an RPG.

[Kristopher]

It never occured to me that guilt might be a matter of the subjective feelings of the target.

[dbsousa]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

 

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

 

as a GM I would ask the player to define this very clearly, to trim the cheese from the edges...

 

Power only affects those who are guilty: advantage

Power only affects those who feel guilt/remorse: slight limitation.

Power can only be used with unusual sense "Sense Guilty: Targetting": reasonable limitation.

Power only affects those who have transgressed against Palasin's God: lim based on how common transgressors are...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by dbsousa

as a GM I would ask the player to define this very clearly, to trim the cheese from the edges...

 

Power only affects those who are guilty: advantage

 

Overall, I think the character gets a big benefit here, and this would be more destructive than Telepathy for mystery type scenarios. "Oh, just get all the suspects in a room and I'll slash them with my sword - it can only affect guilty people"

 

I'd be inclined to require the character to purchase a Detect to reflect the sword's ability to detect the "guilty/evil/what have you". If the only way to tell is to take a swing on them, there's a limitation there (Gestures for sure, at a minimum).

 

Even so, I think the advantages and drawbacks of the attack power only hitting those who are truly "guilty" probably balance out at best and may even carry an advantage (how often do you use your attack powers against the "innocent" - sometimes, since hero vs hero conflict is definitely a comic book standard, and even two good guys can have conflicting views; isn't it nice that they won't affect your teammates if you roll an 18 or get mind controlled)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Overall, I think the character gets a big benefit here, and this would be more destructive than Telepathy for mystery type scenarios. "Oh, just get all the suspects in a room and I'll slash them with my sword - it can only affect guilty people"

 

What if one of the other suspects was guilty of something else, and was on the list before the person guilty of the crime the character w/sword is actually interested in?

 

They end up cutting a petty thief in half, and thinking they've stopped the serial killer...

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Kristopher

What if one of the other suspects was guilty of something else, and was on the list before the person guilty of the crime the character w/sword is actually interested in?

 

They end up cutting a petty thief in half, and thinking they've stopped the serial killer...

Well, I think that if a sword was meant to kill the guilty in this way, it would mean guilty enough to die (perhaps all those guilty of killing or torturing for utterly selfish reasons). So the sword killed a murderer, just the wrong one.

 

That said, the advantage would be sizable, not immense. After all, who trusts the righteousness of the sword, beyond the hero? What about its fallability? It certainly works in a pinch though.

[Gary]

If the sword was that discriminating and infallible, there's nothing to stop the vigilante from slashing every single person on Earth, or at least his city, with it. After all, it won't harm the innocent right?

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Gary

If the sword was that discriminating and infallible, there's nothing to stop the vigilante from slashing every single person on Earth, or at least his city, with it. After all, it won't harm the innocent right?

Except when the other heroes take offense from this. I'd say quite a lot of heroes would be skeptical of the sword, regardless of how right it turns out to be. So there are plenty of hiccups to the vigilante's life.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kintara

Except when the other heroes take offense from this. I'd say quite a lot of heroes would be skeptical of the sword, regardless of how right it turns out to be. So there are plenty of hiccups to the vigilante's life.

 

This vigilante is already in trouble with heroes anyway. He has already killed many guilty. Adding a few dozen or hundred more to the body count won't really change anything.