When do heroes get charged for excesive force?

[JSenecal]

I'm starting a new game in the standard Champions setting. In the first encounter, the two normal thugs received 4 or 5 body damage. To me, that seems enough that they needed hospitalization.

 

So the question is, in Millennium City, is this too much force to use against thugs threatening innocents with machine guns? Would the cops start hunting the heroes as a result?

 

And the closely related question, is this appropriate for a character with Code Against Killing (they weren't close to death after all)?

 

Since new players are involved, I would talk to the players and explain how much force is too much before I start any in-game ramifications.

[OddHat]

Just an opinion, but in most of the USA in the Real World, you're justified in using deadly force in rightful defense of yourself or another. If the thugs were pointing machine guns at civilians and threatening to use them, anything up to killing them would be legal, though you might have to go into court and testify over it. If the thugs threw down the guns or ran away and were then attacked, then the thugs would have a good legal case to bring against the heroes. Excessive force isn't an issue as long as the thugs are pointing guns.

 

Still, your campaign is your campaign. Do as you will.

[Vanguard00]

Re: When do heroes get charged for excesive force?

 

Originally posted by JSenecal

I'm starting a new game in the standard Champions setting. In the first encounter, the two normal thugs received 4 or 5 body damage. To me, that seems enough that they needed hospitalization.

 

So the question is, in Millennium City, is this too much force to use against thugs threatening innocents with machine guns? Would the cops start hunting the heroes as a result?

 

And the closely related question, is this appropriate for a character with Code Against Killing (they weren't close to death after all)?

 

Since new players are involved, I would talk to the players and explain how much force is too much before I start any in-game ramifications.

 

Regarding the damage received, I'd say yeah, the thugs might need a trip to the hospital. That could indicate some broken bones, serious lacerations, or 2nd degree burns (or worse). It's not life-threatening, but expect a lot of pain and discomfort (assuming they have the standard 10 body).

 

Regarding "is this too much force"...not necessarily. If the thugs were threatening innocents with machine guns then yeah, take 'em out. Would the cops start hunting them? Seriously doubtful under the circumstances you gave.

 

Regarding your closely related question, that would depend on the PC. Did they use their maximum-damage attack that actually has a chance to kill normals? If so, then they were in the wrong. Did they do that amount of damage knowing they wouldn't kill them but still seriously hurt them? Then yeah, I'd say the character's okay, if towing the line a little bit.

 

And don't talk to the players OOC. Use in-game dialogue to let them know the ramifications. In one of my earliest PBEMs I had a police officer basically give my hero the drill. "If you want to be a cape in my city here are the rules. Break 'em and I'll come after you just like I do the rest of the scum." Or something like that. Give them a good reason in-game to mind their manners and to be careful of their actions. Have a local newspaper/reporter say that if those guys had been hit much harder they might not have survived, and just what were the heroes thinking...something along those lines.

 

THEN discuss it with your players OOC so they know fully what is expected (i.e. discuss exactly what "Reluctant to kill" means, etc).

[tiger]

I think it would all depend. If the characters continue to send thugs & villains to the hospital then the police could think about charges.

 

Even if they don't it's a save bet that a lawyer will be sueing them

[misterdeath]

Depends on the genre and style of campaign you're running in.

 

In a more 4 color world, or perhaps it's easier to say a less realistic one, they wouldn't be charged provided they haven't crossed the line into villainy.

 

In a more realistic world, depends on the circumstances, the local prosecutor's views on Self Defense and Lethal Force, the feelings about Supers in the world (Mutant Angst!), and the tone you're trying to set as a GM.

 

So, it comes down to whatever you want to happen, happens. The DA in a 4 color world could be a villain in disguise, and so goes after the heroes for excessive force. A realistic world may well have this sort of activity condoned, because of the celebrity of the Heroes.

 

D

 

Note: Millennium City, as written, is pretty darn unrealistic (the car's have working chips, and the system never gets hacked!). So, if the Heroes are known to be Heroes, I'd let it pass.

 

After all, the thugs had machine guns.

[Insaniac99]

Originally posted by misterdeath

Note: Millennium City, as written, is pretty darn unrealistic (the car's have working chips, and the system never gets hacked!). So, if the Heroes are known to be Heroes, I'd let it pass.

 

actually... it has been hacked and tricked and such, but that may be GM info about who so I'll say no more...

[umbra]

Re: When do heroes get charged for excesive force?

 

Originally posted by JSenecal

And the closely related question, is this appropriate for a character with Code Against Killing (they weren't close to death after all)?

 

 

I think it depends on how bad the code against killing is... if it's high, then the PC should not have any killing attacks at all . If it's lower, you could get away with it depending on how rash the PC was playing it. For example, my character has the lowest possible code against killing. She does have a 1d6 RKA (with a +4 stun mod) attack, but with ranged martial moves and levels she can aim for legs and arms, trip and disarm normals without killing them. I think though it's really up to you as the GM how hard you come down on them... I know if I started to really damage normals my GM would not be happy.

[Killer Shrike]

The real question is, what limits of conduct do you want to set on your game.

 

If you want a grittier, more hardboiled game then goons and villains never seem to get the benefit of the law hunting down heros for beating the snot out of them or even killing them.

 

If you want more of a shades of grey campaign, where there are no "good guys" or "bad guys", just a bunch of "guys with powers", like Wild Cards, then having the antagonists press charges for assault, securing a hotshot lawyer, and dragging the the PC(s) into court for damages amid a media crap-storm is fitting.

 

If you are playing a 4-colorish style then the heros should be given a LOT of leeway. Heros are HEROIC and are given some slack. If some jagoff criminal happens to get banged up or even hospitalized once in a blue moon, then they prolly had it coming and the heros were prolly justified in administering a beating. However, the punishment/beating should fit the crime. If the hero laces into a "bad guy" for no reason other than hes a supposed villain, or has a rap sheet, then thats egregious, but if the hero laces into them while they are commiting a crime, so long as the force used doesnt exceed the (percieved) scope of the crime its probably ok.

 

Cynically, in these situations its actually in the hero's benefit to be fashionably late. If the villain has time to escalate thier crime to the point that the public is aware of the danger, they will be much less likely to make a fuss over the means if the ends equates to thier safety being restored. If it keeps happening no matter the scope of the crime, or if it strays from bad guys into passerbys, then the public will get peeved and steps will be taken.

 

But regardless, its more a tone and mood decision on the GMs part to set the boundaries of acceptible behavior and the repercussions of stepping over those boundaries.

[JSenecal]

Thanks for all the useful replies!

 

To be more specific, the game is intended to be 4 color, and the heroes didn't use maximum power. One had a killing attack available, but chose not to use it.

 

The consensus seems to be that that level of damage is reasonable when innocents are threatened. The next question is, would this level of damage be reasonable if only the heroes themselves were threatened (say a late night back robbery). The heroes are presumably bullet proof, so the same guns wouldn't be lethal force against them,

 

My guess is that it would be much less acceptable when the lives of bystanders weren't at risk (unless the heroes themselves were).

[Killer Shrike]

To an extent yes, on the other hand few supers truly know thier own capabilities; they dont have the benefit of reading a character sheet of themselves. Some may not know how little danger an opponent poses to them.

 

Now, Sir Tank the Power Armor guy that knows he built his armor to resiste recoiless rifle rounds or whatever certainly should not over react to a gunsel.

 

However, dont forget the possibility of collateral damage and innocent bystanders. A bullet could ricochet, the bad guy could miss and cause real damage to a non-super. A hero reacting fast to stop that is prolly going to be on the up and up.

 

Also, consider a couple of other aspects: no witnesses, no case, unless the hero has some distinctive bit that could forensically link him like a unique energy signature or something. And are superpowers considered lethal weapons in some circumstances/incarnations? If so, is registration required? etc....it opens up a rabbit hole to many campaign-altering decisions.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Also, consider a couple of other aspects: no witnesses, no case, unless the hero has some distinctive bit that could forensically link him like a unique energy signature or something. And are superpowers considered lethal weapons in some circumstances/incarnations? If so, is registration required? etc....it opens up a rabbit hole to many campaign-altering decisions.

 

Good point this. Remember Demise from the Wildcards books? Killed people by looking in their eyes. The police could never convict him, as they couldn't prove he'd been involved.

[JSenecal]

Also, consider a couple of other aspects: no witnesses, no case, unless the hero has some distinctive bit that could forensically link him like a unique energy signature or something. And are superpowers considered lethal weapons in some circumstances/incarnations? If so, is registration required? etc....it opens up a rabbit hole to many campaign-altering decisions.

 

I'm just using the default settings for this game. It's been maybe a decade since I've done just a generic supers game, it was time to do one again.

 

My tendancies are for very low violence (don't do body ever), but I wanted to see how others handled this for 4 color heroes. Just because my characters don't like to see blood doesn't mean that it's part of the genre.

 

Considering that Silver Age heroes did often knock out thugs with a single blow, perhaps I should downgrade how I'm describe body damage. Example: Instead of 4 Body = broken rib, use 4 body = sore for weeks (broken nose at most)

[umbra]

There are so many attacks that don't cause body (entangles, NND's, etc) I think you should have some sort of reaction to the use of attacks that do body... Maybe that would encourage people to be more creative when coming up with characters.

[Killer Shrike]

Um....Normal damage does Body. So, no Body ever is kind of silly really, IMO. You cant even punch someone with that in place.

 

Also, there is no point in assigning exact Body to Injury ratings. For starters, Body is relative. For another, SFX will dictate the nature of injuries.

 

STUN is basically pain and shock, which fades away rapidly. Body damage is more long term damage that takes a little while to recover from. It can take many forms, but the game effect is that enough of it from all sources will cause you to stop living, and it takes a little while to recover from unless you have Regeneration or get Healed.

 

Whether its broken bones, flesh wounds, burns, poisoning, internal damage, or even just system strain will vary from attack to attack.

[lemming]

Re: Re: When do heroes get charged for excesive force?

 

Originally posted by umbra

I think it depends on how bad the code against killing is... if it's high, then the PC should not have any killing attacks at all .

<rant> I've never liked this argument. Code vs. Killing means you don't kill or take a chance of killing someone. That can be done with a normal attack just as well. I think someone with a 20 point CVK shouldn't whip out their sword and just hack it into somebody, but I don't have a problem with them having one.</rant>

 

Ok, with the 4 or 5 body to thugs. Were these done with one hit, were the heroes pulling back, etc... In most cases, I'd say they wouldn't be charged, but someone may advise them to ease up on the normals. After all, taxes pay for that medical care.

[JSenecal]

I've never liked this argument. Code vs. Killing means you don't kill or take a chance of killing someone. That can be done with a normal attack just as well. I think someone with a 20 point CVK shouldn't whip out their sword and just hack it into somebody, but I don't have a problem with them having one.

 

I agree. Someone with code against killing might have a very large killing attack, they just won't use it against anything alive. Thundar the Barbarian was a good example of this.

 

Ok, with the 4 or 5 body to thugs. Were these done with one hit, were the heroes pulling back, etc... In most cases, I'd say they wouldn't be charged, but someone may advise them to ease up on the normals. After all, taxes pay for that medical care.

 

In each case the damage was done with one blow. The heroes were't using full strength, but I haven't yet explained the pulled puch manuver to the new players.

 

Um....Normal damage does Body. So, no Body ever is kind of silly really, IMO. You cant even punch someone with that in place.

 

Make that no body past defenses. The tougher a targets defenses the harder you can hit them. The most annoying opponent for my characters is a normal with a big gun. They're dangerous, but so soft a target that you cann't do more than touch them without causing them serious harm.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by JSenecal

Make that no body past defenses. The tougher a targets defenses the harder you can hit them. The most annoying opponent for my characters is a normal with a big gun. They're dangerous, but so soft a target that you cann't do more than touch them without causing them serious harm.

That sounds a little like you are rubbing the players noses in the tone of the setting. Were I playing I would make a goon stopper power, like a:

 

Chumpdrop: 3d6 NND (Defense is having more than 250 character points) (+1) Radius (+1) [selective or Personal Immunity depending on SFX] (+1/4) 0 END (+1/2), Full Phase (-1/2) [Gestures or Incantations or Restrainable by other than Grabs depending on SFX] (-1/4) No Range (-1/2) 15 * 3.75 = 56.25 / 2.25 = 25 Real Cost, and worth every penny.

 

SFX: Any of a number of things, in this case lets say a concussive shockwave caused by snapping one's fingers or clapping hands together, or change Gestures for Incantation and give an order (good for Patriot types or mentalists), etc etc etc.

[Nightfly]

Surbrook's Seagal

 

My first FREd PC was based on the Surbrook conversion of [cinematic] Steven Seagal. He cripples thugs (via disabling joint break) just for runnin at him (wrong) hehe.

Could the Punisher exist in a world that litigates against Heroes?

IMO cops are best left out of Hero adventures, unless they're captured and require saving. If cops were effectively dealing w/ the criminals we wouldn't need to clean up their cities in the first place!

Right now I'm (in the process of) building a SH Klingon, FTR he does NOT have a code vs. Killing

[lemming]

Originally posted by JSenecal

In each case the damage was done with one blow. The heroes were't using full strength, but I haven't yet explained the pulled puch manuver to the new players.

 

The most annoying opponent for my characters is a normal with a big gun. They're dangerous, but so soft a target that you cann't do more than touch them without causing them serious harm.

Well if they don't know about the pulled punch manuever, it sounds like it's time.

 

On beating up normals. Hopefully they're low DCV as well so disarming them is a viable option as well.

[tiger]

There are drawbacks to beating up on normals, criminal or otherwise.

 

First is them getting back at you. Now of course thug 1 and 2 aren't a problem but after the knock over a few shops or banks they have maney to buy weapons or hire a villain or two.

 

second, the police tend to frown on such action. While they may over look the costume nut when he's saving the city. They most like will not have this attitude when it's just thugs. Also, remember thugs have lawyers and lawyers can file law suits. May not sound like a big threat but if they file, and win the case someone is going to have to go after the would be heroes. In a supers setting this would be SAT, Primus, Shield whomever.

 

So if heroes getting to kicking the crap out of your normal with to little regards, sick Quido the killer lawyer on them

[Vondy]

My long term game centered on the government's classified paramilitary operations team (metahumans) that worked for the nation's intelligence community. They had operation reviews after every mission, during which their use of force was evaluated. Much like an internal review board. The players were aware of this and their characters became very... professional. In 13 years we had 1 character who actually faced criminal charges (he spent three years in jail), but there were occasions where internal disciplinary actions occured (suspensions without pay, mostly). We also had 1 cover up (very ugly).

 

In your case the question the DA would ask: would a reasonable person have perceived a threat of seriously bodily injury or death to themselves or another?

[umbra]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Um....Normal damage does Body. So, no Body ever is kind of silly really, IMO. You cant even punch someone with that in place.

 

I wasn't saying you shouldn't ever do body, just that it might be good to have consequences to doing body to normals.. and that there are many attacks that don't do body if the characters wanted to be less deadly (i.e. the person with the code against killing).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

That sounds a little like you are rubbing the players noses in the tone of the setting. Were I playing I would make a goon stopper power, like a:

 

Chumpdrop: 3d6 NND (Defense is having more than 250 character points) (+1) Radius (+1) [selective or Personal Immunity depending on SFX] (+1/4) 0 END (+1/2), Full Phase (-1/2) [Gestures or Incantations or Restrainable by other than Grabs depending on SFX] (-1/4) No Range (-1/2) 15 * 3.75 = 56.25 / 2.25 = 25 Real Cost, and worth every penny.

 

Just throw an Entangle (DEF twice BOD) with Radius, extended in the old Multipower. No BOD, and show me the agent that can get out of a decent entangle without his OAF's. Call it 1d6 3 DEF Entangle, 8" radius (2x extended). 20 pts x 2.5 = 50. [Make that BOD standard effect]

 

Higher active points = more entangle, and a bigger radius, but even at 50 points, this holds those pesky normals for a phase or two (and you have WAY more phases than they do to do it again).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by JSenecal

I agree. Someone with code against killing might have a very large killing attack, they just won't use it against anything alive.

 

Why do these discussions always focus on killing attacks? A 1d6 KA won't bring a normal person to dying in one shot. A 15d6 EB (or punch) will. Which one should the CvK hero use (assume they're both beam effects, his only ranged option, and the opponent is about to blow up the full orphanage).

[JSenecal]

Why do these discussions always focus on killing attacks? A 1d6 KA won't bring a normal person to dying in one shot. A 15d6 EB (or punch) will. Which one should the CvK hero use (assume they're both beam effects, his only ranged option, and the opponent is about to blow up the full orphanage).

 

The difference is that even a low killing attack will do body damage to a normal, and if a character is unluckly on stun modifier rolls, may have to kill the target to stop it.

 

In your example above, the character should use the 15d6 EB (if he can bring himself to do so), because it will stop any normal oponenent. A 1d6 killing attack is far to likely to not even stun a normal human, though it would not kill him.

 

However this discussion started assuming that damage was normal, and I was asking how much normal damage was too much to use against a normal.