Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

But both of which can be 20 pts. CaKs. It's the OTHER limitations he may or may not have that CAN dictate how much force he'll use normally.

 

Someone with a "Protects all Life" won't likely use bone breaking force if he/she can help it. While those with "No mercy to Criminals" are more likely to do so. However, their CaK, being full, means that they BOTH will NOT kill on purpose.

 

Accidents, however, can happen and CAN lead to great pathos and angst, and which can be character defining and fun.

 

And isn't that why we play? To have fun?

 

A character with a disadvantage requires him to strike at less than full force against unknown targets is more limited than one whose disadvantage has exactly identical effects, but does not require him to strike at less than full force. The first character is more disadvantaged, and should therefore receive more points for the disadvantage. Why price them out otherwise?

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

A character with a disadvantage requires him to strike at less than full force against unknown targets is more limited than one whose disadvantage has exactly identical effects' date=' but does not require him to strike at less than full force. The first character is more disadvantaged, and should therefore receive more points for the disadvantage. Why price them out otherwise?[/quote']

What makes you say that? I can't see it. A CaK means that the character WON'T kill, ever. But that's it.

 

One can have it, and use the minimum force required to put down his foe, while the other will use the maximum possible force, but won't go over the line, ever. It's dependant on his other Psyche Lims in my book.

 

Also, remember, these are Superhero worlds, in real life punching people around can lead to deadly situations where a mild concussion can lead to death, however in a Comic Based game, you could, theoretically, break every bone in a man's body and he'll just be in a bodycast for about a month (Or at least until his next episode) and be back for business, instead of completely paralyzed, if the GM wants it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

What makes you say that? I can't see it. A CaK means that the character WON'T kill, ever. But that's it.

 

One can have it, and use the minimum force required to put down his foe, while the other will use the maximum possible force, but won't go over the line, ever. It's dependant on his other Psyche Lims in my book.

 

Also, remember, these are Superhero worlds, in real life punching people around can lead to deadly situations where a mild concussion can lead to death, however in a Comic Based game, you could, theoretically, break every bone in a man's body and he'll just be in a bodycast for about a month (Or at least until his next episode) and be back for business, instead of completely paralyzed, if the GM wants it.

 

If it is virtually impossible to kill someone, the frequency of CvK should be reduced for that game. That reduces its value. It is still an absolute commitment. However, if the issue will never arise in a manner which actually disadvantages the character, then the disadvantage should not generate points.

 

If the campaign norm is "you can't kill anyone anyway", CvK is not a disadvantage.

 

If one character's code vs killing is "I won't kill intentionally but I won't make any special effort to avoid it and if everyone else wants to kill people left right and center, that's their business", he should not get as many points as another character's code which is "I won't kill intentionally, I will make every effort to avoid it (including striking with reduced damage against unknown foes) and I will take every reasonable action to prevent others from killing", the second character should generate far more points than the first. That might be because the first CvK is worth less than the second (it's certainly much less frequent). Or it may be because the second character gets additional disadvantages which generate additional points.

 

The important issue is that the player and the GM have the same restrictions, more or less, in mind for the 20 points received.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

If it is virtually impossible to kill someone, the frequency of CvK should be reduced for that game. That reduces its value. It is still an absolute commitment. However, if the issue will never arise in a manner which actually disadvantages the character, then the disadvantage should not generate points.

 

If the campaign norm is "you can't kill anyone anyway", CvK is not a disadvantage.

 

If one character's code vs killing is "I won't kill intentionally but I won't make any special effort to avoid it and if everyone else wants to kill people left right and center, that's their business", he should not get as many points as another character's code which is "I won't kill intentionally, I will make every effort to avoid it (including striking with reduced damage against unknown foes) and I will take every reasonable action to prevent others from killing", the second character should generate far more points than the first. That might be because the first CvK is worth less than the second (it's certainly much less frequent). Or it may be because the second character gets additional disadvantages which generate additional points.

 

The important issue is that the player and the GM have the same restrictions, more or less, in mind for the 20 points received.

 

Wait, I think we're crossing wires here. I'm not talking about impossible to kill someone in a campaign, I'm talking the amount of force used by the character in a campaign.

 

Now assuming that either characters have a CaK at 20 points, as well as the necessary skills powers to 'know' how much force they need to do their jobs. After all a 15D EB is just as lethal as a 5D RKA. Now, Hero A sees that all they need to put this person down with minimal injury is to use a 4D EB. It'll take a few more hits, but it'll mean little to know extra damage. Hero B on the other hand, notes that a single 6D EB will put this guy down faster, but it will put him/her/it in a hospital.

 

However, if they pump the damage up to say... 8-10D that would run the risk of actually KILLING the opponent, so they DON'T and WON'T go that far, because of their CaK.

 

This has nothing to do with whatever limit set by the GM. If it's a Crosshair Collie special where no one will kill, no matter how hard they try, then yes the CaK is worthless, don't bother spending the points, because you've already got it for 0. But if it's an Iron Age Blood and Guts and your heroes have decided that they won't kill even if the bad guys do, then the points are worth it, but again, it's the OTHER Psyche Lims that will detail HOW they go about their fighting, their style so to speak.

 

That's what I'm saying.

[Vulcan]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

If it's a Crosshair Collie special...

 

[teh bunneh]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

I once played a character with a CvK. The team was in a fight against agents, and we were generally playing it safe -- using less powerful attacks against them. But were shrugging off everything we threw at them. So my speedster character ran up to one agent and hit him with her biggest attack (assuming that they were well armored enough to take it).

 

Turns out, their force fields had an activation roll, and this agent flubbed it. My speedster nearly killed him (knocked him down to 0 or 1 BODY in one hit; broke several ribs, internal bleeding, all that). She had a moral crisis; it nearly made her give up being a superhero. Eventually she got over it, but she had sort of an irrational fear of agents after that (not that they could hurt her, but that she would accidentally hurt them!).

[Metaphysician]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Vaguely related commentary: Champions has an extremely distorted view on how common and extensive CvKs are in actual comics. The supps tend to hand out Total CvKs like candy, when the only era of comics where they are that common, is the Silver Age. This is problematic, not because the Silver Age is bad, but because in an actual Silver Age setting, a Total CvK isn't worth 20 points.

 

Just look at the JLA Big Seven in the past thirty years or so. The team has precisely *one* person on it with a Total CvK: Batman. And he both doesn't hold it for strictly ethical reasons ( he knows he's too broken to risk killing ), and doesn't extend the same degree of restriction to others ( he has no issue with police using lethal force, for instance ).

Superman has a Strong CvK, not Total; he has used potentially deadly force against others before, outright killed Doomsday ( *before* it was known he self-revived ), and even executed the alt-universe Kryptonian criminals ( though he regretted it afterwards ).

Wonder Woman and Aquaman outright lack CvKs, as they have used deadly force before with little regret; they just don't do it all the time.

The Martian Manhunter has killed before, though it is rare, in extreme circumstances, and with regret. I'd peg him Moderate CvK.

Kyle Rayner likewise has *tried* to kill on occasion before with extreme provocation, likewise a Moderate.

Flash. . . I honestly can't think of any case of Wally using deadly force, but I'd still only peg him as a Moderate.

 

You might be asking now, why I'd peg so many heroes as having such small CvKs, despite the sometimes complete lack of any actual instances of killing. There's actually a simple explanation: the strength of a Psych Limit is not based on how often something is done. It is based on how often it would be beneficial to break it, and yet, it is not broken. For most superheroes in most circumstances? There's no *point* to using deadly force, because non-deadly force would work just as well. Basically, for 99% of the battles and crises that, say, the Flash gets into? Even somebody with *no* CvK wouldn't be killing people, because it would be totally unnecessary.

 

Thus, I follow the rule of assigning the *minimum* level of CvK necessary to explain a character's behavior. And the number of characters who actually have a Total CvK in comics? I think the only major one *is* Batman. I'm not even sure Norrin "Shiny Space Jesus" Radd would have one.

[Singingcrow]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

If the player continued to torture others. I'd recommend he have to take a social disadvantage of Sadistic Tendancies. Maybe also a Rep of Sadistic Practices. 5 pts each.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Part of what I find ironic about this thread comes from recalling The Dark Knight Returns, often considered the "point of origin" for the Iron Age of Comics, where Bats maintains his strict CVK (even after deciding to finally make an exception for the Joker) throughout, but still tortures, kneecaps, and otherwise strikes terror into the hearts of criminals the rest of the way through the book.

 

"There are seven working defenses from this position. Three of them disarm with minimal contact. Three of them kill. The other... **KRAKK** hurts."

 

"It was tough work, carrying two hundred and twenty pounds of sociopath to the top of Gotham Towers... the highest spot in the city. The scream alone is worth it."

 

"You don't get it, boy. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."

"Something tells me to stop with the leg. I don't listen to it."

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Part of what I find ironic about this thread comes from recalling The Dark Knight Returns, often considered the "point of origin" for the Iron Age of Comics, where Bats maintains his strict CVK (even after deciding to finally make an exception for the Joker) throughout, but still tortures, kneecaps, and otherwise strikes terror into the hearts of criminals the rest of the way through the book.

 

"There are seven working defenses from this position. Three of them disarm with minimal contact. Three of them kill. The other... **KRAKK** hurts."

 

"It was tough work, carrying two hundred and twenty pounds of sociopath to the top of Gotham Towers... the highest spot in the city. The scream alone is worth it."

 

"You don't get it, boy. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."

"Something tells me to stop with the leg. I don't listen to it."

 

Bingo. This is a man who CAN kill, but WON'T and yet, will use the maximum force necessary to put the threat down. However, when facing an unknown, he doesn't lash out with full force, he tests the waters first. But at the same time, it's not his CvK that determines how much force he uses, it's his OTHER psyche lims.

[Greywind]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Vaguely related commentary: Champions has an extremely distorted view on how common and extensive CvKs are in actual comics. The supps tend to hand out Total CvKs like candy' date=' when the only era of comics where they are that common, is the Silver Age. This is problematic, not because the Silver Age is bad, but because in an actual Silver Age setting, a Total CvK isn't worth 20 points. [/quote']

In the AC that dealt with the conversion from Marvel Super-Heroes to Hero, if I recall the notes correctly, all the attacks were supposed to relate to killing/lethal/high end attacks.

[Utech]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

I certainly have no problem with fantasy. (To address a topic brought up earlier in this thread, I enjoyed the Dark Knight and was entertained by the torture in it.) If that's the sort of game you want to play and everyone is on board, then go for it! Be brutal. Be vengeful. Be a sociopath. I've certainly had fun playing that sort of thing.

 

If, on the other hand, people are uncomfortable with the torture and/or it isn't appropriate for the game you're playing, you really do need to deal with it. Many good suggestions have been given so far. Here's one more (for very realistic games):

 

Have a professional interrogator demonstrate how he is able to get better information than the torturer -- and faster! -- without the use of torture. Then he can offer to teach your PC how to do the same.

[Vulcan]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

In my opinion, there is little in CvK that would prevent a character from torture. The only thing that comes to mind is that the character would not inflict life-threatening harm on the person being tortured, or if torturing a victim might result in a stroke or coronary (use care when torturing older victims).

 

As has been said before, it's the character's other psych limits that will determine whether torture is a viable option.

 

Having said that, there is also the little detail that America (the country a majority of Champions players are from) views torture as, well, villianous. So a character that indulges in torture could quickly find himself with a very bad reputation, no matter how important the information obtained turns out to be. This is especially true if there is an antagonistic reporter waiting in the wings to interview the victim...

 

So, in general, I don't reccomend torture as a means to gather information if you have a CvK. Because the best way to keep it a secret is to make sure no one ever finds the body...

 

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

In my opinion' date=' there is little in CvK that would prevent a character from torture. The only thing that comes to mind is that the character would not inflict [i']life-threatening[/i] harm on the person being tortured, or if torturing a victim might result in a stroke or coronary (use care when torturing older victims).

 

As has been said before, it's the character's other psych limits that will determine whether torture is a viable option.

 

Having said that, there is also the little detail that America (the country a majority of Champions players are from) views torture as, well, villianous. So a character that indulges in torture could quickly find himself with a very bad reputation, no matter how important the information obtained turns out to be. This is especially true if there is an antagonistic reporter waiting in the wings to interview the victim...

 

So, in general, I don't reccomend torture as a means to gather information if you have a CvK. Because the best way to keep it a secret is to make sure no one ever finds the body...

 

 

Again, it's the other Psyche Lims that determine your actions in this regard. Most of the Champions, because they are both popular and WISH TO REMAIN AS POSTIVE ROLE MODELS, are NOT going to have things like Vigilante Mentality, or No Mercy For Criminals or similar hard edged psychological issues. More than likely they're going to have Soft Hearted, or Devoted to all Life, or what not, all the limp wristed or weak willed mental problems.

 

A Batman style vigilante on a crusade, on the other hand, isn't one for the spotlight, and really doesn't care about how he or she is percieved, they want results. Even if they don't ever want to kill.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

This all seems very mechanical disad application. My simplistic question would be "Why does he draw the line at killing?". That aspect of his personality should provide an indication to his attitude to other issues.

 

If torture is OK, what about lobotomization? Crippling for life? Hey, as long as he's not dead, right?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Kneecaps are, by and large, innocent.

[Greywind]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Kneecaps are' date=' by and large, innocent.[/quote']

Oh, I don't know. It depends on what she has above and below them...

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

This all seems very mechanical disad application. My simplistic question would be "Why does he draw the line at killing?". That aspect of his personality should provide an indication to his attitude to other issues.

 

If torture is OK, what about lobotomization? Crippling for life? Hey, as long as he's not dead, right?

 

What does his other Psychological Limitations say? That's what you should be looking at, because otherwise you're making a CvK stand for about five seperate other disadvantages.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

And, having checked with an expert, it seems Norrin Radd *also* has a Total CvK, save when he's under the influence of Galactus.

 

That makes two characters in mainstream comics with Total CvKs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

What does his other Psychological Limitations say? That's what you should be looking at' date=' because otherwise you're making a CvK stand for about five seperate other disadvantages.[/quote']

 

Actually, I'm saying that if you want 20 points for it, you need to ensure your interpretation imposes enough limitations on the character to justify its "common" frequency at the "total commitment" level.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Actually' date=' I'm saying that if you want 20 points for it, you need to ensure your interpretation imposes enough limitations on the character to justify its "common" frequency at the "total commitment" level.[/quote']

 

But here's the thing.

 

Norrin Radd, the Silver Surfer, respects all life, all of it. Although incredibly powerful, he won't take a life if he can help it.

 

Batman doesn't kill, but is out to make sure that most crooks are too damn scared to try again. He knows all the tricks to make his foes hurt and scream, but has a self-imposed limit.

 

BOTH have CvKs, and BOTH have the full 20 points for it. But it's the OTHER psyche lims they have that determine how much force they want to use. The CvK just says, WILL NOT KILL EVER.

[Greywind]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

That's your take. Only Batman I've seen that acts in that light is Elseworlds, not main line.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

That's your take. Only Batman I've seen that acts in that light is Elseworlds' date=' not main line.[/quote']

 

'Main line'? Dude, there are like at least 3 books that have the Bat as the or a main character, and it switches from author to author.

[Vulcan]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

Actually' date=' I'm saying that if you want 20 points for it, you need to ensure your interpretation imposes enough limitations on the character to justify its "common" frequency at the "total commitment" level.[/quote']

 

I hadn't thought of that. That's an excellent point.

 

Not saying I necessarily agree in all cases, but that is still an excellent point.

[Utech]

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

 

But here's the thing.

 

Norrin Radd, the Silver Surfer, respects all life, all of it. Although incredibly powerful, he won't take a life if he can help it.

 

Batman doesn't kill, but is out to make sure that most crooks are too damn scared to try again. He knows all the tricks to make his foes hurt and scream, but has a self-imposed limit.

 

BOTH have CvKs, and BOTH have the full 20 points for it. But it's the OTHER psyche lims they have that determine how much force they want to use. The CvK just says, WILL NOT KILL EVER.

 

I'm not sure that both receive the full 20 points. That would depend on how often not killing someone proves disadvantageous. The value of the Disadvantage would have to be sorted out in a discussion among GM and players.