"I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

[TheDux]

This character has a strong Code Against Killing, but in her arsenal of powers she has an ability that is designed for for causing instant death.

 

The question is, would I add a limitation to the power to make a roll in order to bring herself to kill, or would that be part of the Psychological Limitation?

 

I have seen a power built with an Activation Roll limitation for a phychological, but i thought this was incorrect.

 

So what is right?

[Lucius]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I would probably say it's part of the psych lim - she already needs an EGO roll to use it, right?

 

However, adding limitations like extra END, Time, or a Side Effect of some kind to reflect the psychological strain might be legitimate.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Making a palindromedary roll

[TheDux]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I would probably say it's part of the psych lim - she already needs an EGO roll to use it, right?

 

However, adding limitations like extra END, Time, or a Side Effect of some kind to reflect the psychological strain might be legitimate.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Making a palindromedary roll

 

Thats how I would think of it. Thanks.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

This character has a strong Code Against Killing' date=' but in her arsenal of powers she has an ability that is designed for for causing instant death.[/quote']

 

I might be overthinking this, but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?

[Beast]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I would take away the CvK and call the act,extra,time and extra end as the cvk lim

 

my character Wraith has a CvK but also has a 6d6 body drain which is ment to destroy things

She would have to be under great stress to even think about using it on a living being(after having used up other options)

ego rolls to use such attacks is already built into CvK

taking another activate is IMHO is not the way to go

using those limitations I think to simulate a character inner conflict is great

hopefully you have some attacks that you do not need use those limitations

[TheDux]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I might be overthinking this' date=' but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?[/quote']

 

Long story slightly shorter:

 

Story reason:

Grandfather Breakneck was a Super Hero back in the golden days, before "the catastrophe" where all of earth's major heroes were killed. Breakneck was in a coma at the time with possible paralysis and was not killed. Years later his Granddaughter Breakneck finds the costume and gadgets that gave him his superspeed and energy blasts. One ability that Grandfather Breakneck developed (Vibrating Palm) disrupts the target's heart beat, causing it to stop. He only used it once in desperation. But Granddaughter Breakneck knows of this ability and knows how to do it. And while she will not kill, she knows that she can very easily.

 

RP reason:

I felt it would end up making a good plot piece. "I know I must kill this evil doer, but...I can't." Evil doer goes on to kill friend OmeGal. Or maybe "...I killed him..." And she is hesitant to use her powers again.

 

So mostly so that she can do it in desperation, or not do it and lead to repercussions.

 

Repercussions are fun plot pieces. Look at Spiderman taking off the mask!

[prestidigitator]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I might be overthinking this' date=' but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?[/quote']

 

So that an enemy mentalist can Mind Control the character into using it, and then (s)he can go through months and months of therapy over it, to the disgust of his/her teammates? ;-)

[Sean Waters]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

We often look at characters from the point of view of the designer - an obvious choice of PoV

 

It is interesting sometimes to look at characters from the PoV of the character though. Presumably their powers were not (in the vast majority of cases) a matter of their choice.

 

I think this presents an interesting dillemma, and one where I would not, as GM, want the character paying a lot of points for an ability that, in practive, is almost never going to be a good thing for them to use and so, in practice will rarely, if ever BE used.

 

If it is a MP slot, then it is cheap anyway - I'd leave it. If it is more than a MP slot, how about 'Side Effects - depression, guilt and remorse, possibly even suicidal behaviour' (inspired by presdidigitator's post above). In other words the character gains a bunch of psych lims if the power is used to kill someone. I would not necessarily have an activation roll: the character will have to wrestle with their conscience to get to the point of using it - you don't want all that drama to be scuppered by a dice roll.

 

Interesting idea

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I might be overthinking this' date=' but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?[/quote']

 

We often look at characters from the point of view of the designer - an obvious choice of PoV

 

It is interesting sometimes to look at characters from the PoV of the character though. Presumably their powers were not (in the vast majority of cases) a matter of their choice.

 

Precisely. Sadly, I have repp'd Sean too recently.

 

I can only assume everyone on the Boards (other than Sean and I) consider themselves absolutely perfect in every way. After all, if you didn't want to be bald, poor, weak, unhealthy or unable to grasp mathematics, why would you have these on your metaphysical 'character sheet'?

[Lucius]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

Precisely. Sadly, I have repp'd Sean too recently.

 

I can only assume everyone on the Boards (other than Sean and I) consider themselves absolutely perfect in every way. After all, if you didn't want to be bald, poor, weak, unhealthy or unable to grasp mathematics, why would you have these on your metaphysical 'character sheet'?

 

1. Maybe it's a random system rather than a point-buy system.

 

2. Maybe it is a point buy, but the base points are so low we had to take a lot of Disads.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And maybe we are the NPCs and the palindromedary is the real player character

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

1. Maybe it's a random system rather than a point-buy system.

 

Unless the character, rather than the character's designer, gets to see his own character sheet, it seems pretty random to him.

[prestidigitator]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

Yep. Just the lines along which I was thinking Sean. Consider also the No Conscious Control Limitation. Maybe not the context in which we would normally use it, but it seems fitting.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I can only assume everyone on the Boards (other than Sean and I) consider themselves absolutely perfect in every way.

 

You know what they say about what happens when you assume...

[Basil]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I agree with Sean; an Activation roll doesn't sound right, as missing it could frag a major role-playing moment.

 

The ones that I think might apply: Increased END, Extra Time (though only "Delayed Phase," "Extra Segment," or "Full Phase," IMO), Concentration: Unaware Of Nearby Events, Limited Power: Reduced OCV. The last reflects her subconscious interfering with her aim.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I might be overthinking this' date=' but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?[/quote']

 

Depends on the SFX in question, but you can use killing attacks on things like walls and (nonsentient) robots or foci. This particular one seems like it could be used to shake apart a wall or car pretty readily.

[Greywind]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I might be overthinking this' date=' but why does a character with a strong CAK have a such a lethal attack?[/quote']Because characters don't have a choice in what their power suite is?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

There was a character in one of my games who was an energy projector (an air elemental tied to the physical plane who had no idea of his past).

 

The character believed that all of his powers were based around a mystical suit of armour and a wind sword. All of the powers were bought as foci (OIF and OAF) and when the items were removed from him he was unable to use the powers.

 

Obviously, the powers were innate and it was a psychological blockage that caused the inability but we hard-coded it into the character sheet. Over time we shuffled disadvantages and limitations to reflect the voyage of the character from a focus based energy projector to a full fledged wind elemental.

 

The best thing about this was that it didnt require a huge number of experience points to achieve - we shuffled many more points than we bought off and it allowed a lot of 'change' in the character as he discovered the bits and pieces of his past.

 

The best thing about HERO is that you can do this physically or psychologically and the rule mechanics support both ways. What you have to do is discuss what the player wants to do with the character. If the player is keen to roleplay bits and pieces and work on the psychological side of things then it might be better to have the constant temptation of a power that works. If the player wants to work through the frustrations of not being able to use a tool that he believes would do the job better but, for one reason or another (and one of those could be subconscious unwillingness) then hard-coding activation etc could be a better way forward.

 

What I would say is that both you and the player need to know where the character is intended to go. That way you can swithc things round as it seems appropriate.

 

 

Stephen

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

Because characters don't have a choice in what their power suite is?

 

It's interesting that we often look at overly effective combinations of abilities and cry "Munchkin", and we devalue certain disadvantages when the character has powers to compensate (blindness/enhanced senses; no legs/flight).

 

By the same logic, shouldn't a Code vs Killing be worth more if all your attacks are lethal and less if you are a highly effective combatant using abilities that cannot inflict BOD damage?

[Greywind]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

Actually, I was just saying that the characters don't have a say in what their power suite is.

 

The player on the other hand...

[prestidigitator]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

It's interesting that we often look at overly effective combinations of abilities and cry "Munchkin"' date=' and we devalue certain disadvantages when the character has powers to compensate (blindness/enhanced senses; no legs/flight).[/quote']

 

There's always been something about that which bugs me. A friend watched Daredevil after having no prior knowledge of the comic book character. He said basically, "That's stupid. A superhero whose whole concept is being 'blind' but having all these other senses that are basically better than sight anyway." I chose to remain silent. How do you explain this sort of thing? LOL.

 

Anyway, should Daredevil get points for a blindness Disadvantage? Well, is he as effective as someone would be who had both his senses and normal sight? When you've basically taken the points in something innate and transferred them into an ability that is about equivalent but different, do you essentially have to pay double (because you don't get anything from not having that innate trait), or do we violate our sacred rule of a Disadvantage having to be disadvantageous (with a value proportional to its disadvantageousnessnessousness)?

 

I wish I had a good answer, myself. It seems half an accounting thing and half a sacred, inviolable meta-rule.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

There's always been something about that which bugs me. A friend watched Daredevil after having no prior knowledge of the comic book character. He said basically, "That's stupid. A superhero whose whole concept is being 'blind' but having all these other senses that are basically better than sight anyway." I chose to remain silent. How do you explain this sort of thing? LOL.

 

Anyway, should Daredevil get points for a blindness Disadvantage? Well, is he as effective as someone would be who had both his senses and normal sight? When you've basically taken the points in something innate and transferred them into an ability that is about equivalent but different, do you essentially have to pay double (because you don't get anything from not having that innate trait), or do we violate our sacred rule of a Disadvantage having to be disadvantageous (with a value proportional to its disadvantageousnessnessousness)?

 

I wish I had a good answer, myself. It seems half an accounting thing and half a sacred, inviolable meta-rule.

 

He gets some, just less. For example, he can't see color. When he encountered Crossbones, he was unable to make out his mask details or chest emblem (one guess what his chest emblem is), which might have clued him in as to who he was dealing with; he'd never met Crossbones and couldn't recognize his voice or scent, but he might have heard the name before.

 

Edit: Yay, post 4k!

[Korvar]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

He gets some' date=' just less. For example, he can't see color. When he encountered Crossbones, he was unable to make out his mask details or chest emblem (one guess what his chest emblem is), which might have clued him in as to who he was dealing with; he'd never met Crossbones and couldn't recognize his voice or scent, but he might have heard the name before.[/quote']

 

Similarly, he was up against "Typhoid Mary", who has multiple personalities, to the extent that her heartbeat and other indicators were different between the two. Naturally, he fell in love with "Mary" while fighting "Typhoid".

 

However, "Typhoid" had MARY written on the back of her jacket in large colourful letters - a big clue that he couldn't read, because it was just colour.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

Anyway' date=' should Daredevil get points for a blindness Disadvantage? Well, is he as effective as someone would be who had both his senses [i']and[/i] normal sight? When you've basically taken the points in something innate and transferred them into an ability that is about equivalent but different, do you essentially have to pay double (because you don't get anything from not having that innate trait), or do we violate our sacred rule of a Disadvantage having to be disadvantageous (with a value proportional to its disadvantageousnessnessousness)?

 

I wish I had a good answer, myself. It seems half an accounting thing and half a sacred, inviolable meta-rule.

 

I think the meta rule is wrong. Daredevil paid the points for the compensating advantages. He should get the points for the ability he has lost.

 

Let's take another example. A character cannot walk - he can only crawl along the ground. He can, however, fly. So he buys 10" Flight, and sells back 5" Running. Why did he get full points for selling back his running? He's not really disadvantaged - he'll fly instead. ANSWER: Because it's a sellback instead of a disadvantage.

 

I'd like to see some consistency. Either the loss of abilities one gets by default should always be a sellback (Flying Worm can trade running for flight, and Daredevil can trade sight for radar) or they should always be disadvantages (DD buys the radar and gets a disad for Blind; FW pays for flight and gets a disad for -5" running). The current mix & match system creates inequities.

 

Reducing the level of disad because the character has paid full points (and no one ever suggests DD get a discount on Radar Sense) for compensating abilities exacerbates the inequity.

 

[Off to 6e for some cross posting...]

[Sean Waters]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I agree, and I would prefer to see everything done as a sellback: DD buys 'Radar' at 27 points (say) and is blind, with sell back he has spent 2 points and has a slightly more useful but different sense (normal sight costs 25 points. Grr.)

 

With a disadvantage he has spent 27 point and now only has to find (150-25)=125 points in disadvantages BUT the finished character will effectively have 25 fewer points to spend than the sellback character.

 

That is indeed inequitable.

 

NB Of course you might be able to manage a sellback AND a disadvantage - obvious blindness might be a social stigma, for instance, but you would not be able to take it as a physical limitation: blind, if you get the sellback points.

[prestidigitator]

Re: "I can't bring myself to kill, but..."

 

I agree we should look into this more heavily. And it gets a little more squirrelly when we start talking about things that are not obvious sell-backs, of course. What if a character has no arms, but has Telekinesis? You can't exactly sell back your arms. Your Str can be applied in other ways. Maybe we could do it as a Limitation on Str (and Dex? what if we are using Hit Locations...?). Maybe it's more fitting as a Disadvantage (but should it count toward your Disadvantage total if it is really more like a transfer of poitns?).