Conduct Codes

[Bolon]

I have been reading a bit of philosophy and see there are a number of ways to reach a code of conduct.

 

There are absolute rules like I will not kill. They are limited as they are not able to adapt for situations and must be universally applied.

 

There is the concept of virtue ethnics where someone has the virtues of a specific role or occupation. This would then guide the character based on the archtype. Using code of police officer, they will not kill but can kill in specific situation. The stronger the adherence to the code the more it comes into effect and more points. It is based on sort of what a model of that archtype would do and you would have conflict based on how far from that you would be acting. It might make the selection and making of codes easier to design and run.

[Christopher]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

I don't really understand what your question is, or what the idea is you throw out for comments.

 

As far as I can tell the difference between Supermans CvK and a Police Offiers CvK is simply the Intensity value. One has a total, the other only a Strong and the next one only a Moderate level.

 

If you need more Steps, APG II 53 has a expanded Intensity table:

Mild (the old Moderate), Moderate, Strong, Very Strong, Total.

[Bolon]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

There is no question, it is about a better way to state your code. The intensity steps are the same but a code is a role you believe in and follow. Other than the standard CvK, many people have difficulty with creating codes like a samurii, thief, paladin, or whatever you need within your game. The philosophy of a virtue ethics presents the code as a group of virtues or ideas that would be trained into the character and would be followed due to that training or indoctrination into the life. Therefore, the codes like "I shall not kill" which is more of an end product that needs to be applied universally without exception can be avoided. The GM and the player can then debate on the code via intensity and a model version of the archtype on ethics involved. It would simplify the codes and creation of such.

 

For example, Superman might have a superhero code including defending innocents and against killing. Since he can stand in front of bullets and such, he would be required to stop that danger over stopping a villain. The Police officer with a code of police would still need to defend innocents and be against killing but due to his code, killing a villain who is a threat to innocents before immediate danger can occur would not affect him like with Superman. He wouldn't need to place his body in danger and should be allowed to take the shot to stop a death.

 

The taking of a code would mean you are prepared as a player to have your character act in the archtypical way or stereotypical way of that role. This can be easily defined by just saying code of the ______ instead of massive code or rules. It would also mean that you can be predicted based on how you would act by someone aware of your limitation.

[Christopher]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

For example' date=' Superman might have a superhero code including defending innocents and against killing. Since he can stand in front of bullets and such, he would be required to stop that danger over stopping a villain. The Police officer with a code of police would still need to defend innocents and be against killing but due to his code, killing a villain who is a threat to innocents before immediate danger can occur would not affect him like with Superman. He wouldn't need to place his body in danger and should be allowed to take the shot to stop a death.[/quote']

Then the Policeman should not have a Total CvK. Preferibly he has at least of Psych Comp "bigger" than his CvK (like protective of innocents). If not, he might hesistate when he needs to shoot preemtively.

 

A lot of this depends on the options he has. As you point out, Superman can stop these bullets without resorting to KA's (or even attacking the person). Police officers can't do the same.

 

The taking of a code would mean you are prepared as a player to have your character act in the archtypical way or stereotypical way of that role.

Taking a complciation (and getting points for it) means that want it to be a problem. I could just as easily write down CvK for 0 points or just note some personality quirks on his personality description (strongly opposed to hurting dogs, totally devoted to protecting innocents).

 

If you want to make a collection complication, just name it "personal code" and explain the seperate parts in the Notes.

[Bolon]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Why would you write it down if it doesn't have value or meaning in your mind? Duh.

If it is a complication or disadvantage, the intensity would require ego rolls to go against it. The fact it would means some complications is Hero 101. It sounds like you still don't understand. I assume you don't consider situational modifiers in combat either.

 

The code by definition can be more situational by employing the virtue ethics of the archtype. Therefore it defines better without the need for notes when it is reasoned. Within the subfield of ethics within the field of philosophy, you find virtue ethics. They are trained virtues that become the ethics of a specific person or role. Therefore they are codes created for those people. If you need to break it down, you could be point raping or just trying to get extra points for the same thing. Secondly, it is about cleaning up the system and not about complicating it more.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Psy Comp: Code of the Samurai. Set the intensity based upon how "good" of a samurai he is.

 

No?

[Bolon]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

It is how much he follows the virtues and ways of a samurai. If that is yes, then yes. If it is how good he swings sword or does samurai stuff, then it is no. You have the idea. Instead of needing to write all, the character is trying to be the archtypical samurai and therefore decides on what the top samurai would do. This can therefore be predicted and will be a complication in how he does things or such. The bad guys will also learn of his complication by his actions and think of him in this fashion. You might want to drop the intensity if you have an exception like "will not kill self since Master is dead". Intensity can be bought down or up depending on game play as well.

 

This will become difficult if you have a role like the Jedi who is thought by some as peaceful and with CvK but others in your group see them as judges with a lethal force. There was a divide in how Jedis are and what their code is but remember light sabers don't have a stun setting. Make sure you and your GM agree on the idea of the code or what source you are using.

[Greywind]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Yeah, but the problem there is that some people need the codes spelled out for them so that they know what they aren't supposed to be doing.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

I've been doing this for years, in that case. It's a much quicker way of noting a broad or exhaustive code of behavior on the sheet, and it allows you take other, more unique to that particular character, Complications that get played IN ADDITION to the code.

[Christopher]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Why would you write it down if it doesn't have value or meaning in your mind? Duh.

They have a meaning. But they should not be a Problem.

 

If you take CvK as a Complciation that counts you say:

"My Character is against killing"

AND

"I want him to be in situations where his unwillingness to kill is a Problem."

Remember the first rule of Complciations: "A Complication that isn't a complciation isn't worth any points!".

 

Quite often we have to write things like CvK as Complication, just to have the points we need (especially 5E has this problem).

I agree that most heroes should be against killing to soem degree. Superheroes should be strongly or totally against killing. What I disagree with, is that superheroes being against killing has to be a Problem for them.

 

My Characters are strongly to total against killing. A mentalist should have problems forcing them to kill people (higher Level of Mind Controll needed). On the other hand, they might be easy to convince that they have to prevent a murder (lower level of Mind Control needed).

However I don't want that conviction to be a Problem.

 

Yeah' date=' but the problem there is that some people need the codes spelled out for them so that they know what they aren't supposed to be doing.[/quote']

I agree with that, my brother was such a case with the D&D Paladin. And the "Good" part of "Lawfull Good".

[Lucius]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

You're re-inventing the wheel.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Re-inventing the palindromedary

[Christopher]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

You're re-inventing the wheel.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Re-invenitng the palindromedary

Who?

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Actually, a policeman or a soldier would not have a code vs killing. They would have a code vs murder. Murder being defined as an unjustified taking of life of another sentient being. Where disputes occur is when it comes to what qualifies as unjustified and who/what qualifies as sentient, and most, if not all, moral claims operate on similar scales. Superman would consider killing any sentient being for any reason as murder. A policeman or soldier would consider killing to protect society as justified and therefore not murder. A Southern slaveholding gentleman of the late 1700's to early 1800s would consider killing another gentleman in a proper dual as justified and not murder and would consider a black less than human and therefore would not consider killing a runaway slave as murder. Many vegetarians consider all living things to be sentient and most killings to be murder. In fact, most moral/ethical questions would follow similar sliding definitional scales. If you want to model that for a game system, you would need to include how broadly or narrowly does an individual define his terms.

 

(For the record: It may sound like I am making an argument for moral relativism when in fact I am a moral objectivist. I am merely making arguments from what people believe rather than what is actually true.)

[Bolon]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

That is the idea behind the virtue ethics as they are a trained set of beliefs that are then adjusted based on needs of the role. The virtues that are trained would guide the individual in real life and in game play, those situations would be guiding the individual. Even if the character is not watched or under the control of the organization, an ingrained code of ethics of that organization would play on the character. Starting with an archtype that the character tries to act like and imitates, you now can have a code of ethics based on that archtype. Defining everything in detail is sometimes necessary if there is not an understanding between the player and the GM. Personally, I prefer GM that reminds the player of his code rather than just lay down penalties with a simple "that will be against your code, are you sure you want to do that". That might result in a defining of the code more.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

I think that is true as long as moral standards are classified as objective in nature rather then subjective. In other words, as long as the definitions of the terms are tightly maintained, ethical considerations will remain constant across the board. However, once individuals feel free to apply their own definitions to ethical terms, ethical decay will occur. Historically, when societies fall into ethical decline, it isn't the words that change. It is the definitions.

 

Of course, how to handle this in a game would be a completely different question. I personally would allow a player a little wiggle room regarding his stated code of conduct relative to the points received by the conduct. If a player wants to be fairly loose with his definitions, I would only offer a small reward, and if a player wants to be very tight with his definitions, he should get a large reward. Of course, if his definitions are so loose that they cease to offer a complication, I wouldn't allow any reward.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

It is how much he follows the virtues and ways of a samurai. If that is yes, then yes. If it is how good he swings sword or does samurai stuff, then it is no. You have the idea. Instead of needing to write all, the character is trying to be the archtypical samurai and therefore decides on what the top samurai would do. This can therefore be predicted and will be a complication in how he does things or such. The bad guys will also learn of his complication by his actions and think of him in this fashion. You might want to drop the intensity if you have an exception like "will not kill self since Master is dead". Intensity can be bought down or up depending on game play as well.

 

This will become difficult if you have a role like the Jedi who is thought by some as peaceful and with CvK but others in your group see them as judges with a lethal force. There was a divide in how Jedis are and what their code is but remember light sabers don't have a stun setting. Make sure you and your GM agree on the idea of the code or what source you are using.

 

You can't really write down "Code of the Samuraii" and just run with that because who knows what the code of the Samuraii was? Different Samuraii acted different ways, and, to the extent that there was a code, it probably runs something Bushido-y (although that was a philosophy based on someone's idea of what it SHOULD be), like:

 

Honour, Obedience (to overlord), Courage, Respect (as it applies to others of equal or greater rank), then what? Truth? Justice? The Samuraii Way?

 

It all becomes a bit circular because a clever player or can justify anything with that weird old circle of often contradictory moral directions.

 

Want to kill someone? Do it out of Obedience.

Want to steal something? Do it to restore Honour.

Want to rape and kill peasants? Well, they are only peasants...

 

That is why Hero tends to be pretty definite about its morality, if you want to get points for it. Only give into the killing urges 1 time in 4? You've got a strong code against killing, buddy.

 

YOU might know what your idea of a Samuraii Code is (or any other code, for that matter) but to be in any way externally enforceable then you need to be able to express in writing what you will and will not do in certain situations.

 

The idea of an EGO roll to determine if your Psych Lim bites is, frankly ludicrous: why in the name of seven vaguely sensible things would someone with a high EGO be less limited by a Psych lim than someone with a low EGO? Surely someone with a high EGO is LESS likely to give in to temptation, and from a point balance POV, it should not matter: 10 points of complications should have the same effect on all characters.

 

You'd be better off forgetting the roll to determine if you can overcome a Psych Lim and just let players do it as they want but warn them that they are about to cross a line and (if they insist) impose a roll penalty until they do some sort of penance.

 

What were we talking about again?

[Greywind]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Hey, Sean. What would the "Code of the Conductor" be?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Hey' date=' Sean. What would the "Code of the Conductor" be?[/quote']

 

"Always try to remain dignified when appearing on the Morcombe and Wise Show", Strong, Frequent.

 

It is pretty similar to the NewsCaster Code of Conduct.

[Bolon]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

The ego roll is on a penalty that is inflicted in other games. I haven't seen it in 6th Ed and was a sort of house rule in our games. It would be against heavy guilt or psychological damage. It could also be against a penalty until it is repaid or repented. The higher ego would be able to function better to cope with his betrayal of his ethics. It may not be part of the rules but it makes sense and we have applied it. Up to the GM and how he would interpret the breakage.

 

Get real, in 2 adventures you would accumulate enough XP to buy down the code so it would become prespent XP. If you don't want to weigh down your game, then use a more virtue ethics method versus lawyer talk.

 

"Want to kill someone? Do it out of Obedience.

Want to steal something? Do it to restore Honour.

Want to rape and kill peasants? Well, they are only peasants..."

 

You are correct but you have missed something important. You say you do it for your overlord. Are you telling me that you would kill his property as peasants are without his permission and you have control to decide what he wants? That is the code we want and if you need to kill, you do so for your overlord. It sounds like you are proving my point. Thanks since it makes no sense for your point. This works great.

 

The code of the role is like any code with loopholes and situations where a smart player can work it to his advantage. Did a smarter player mess you up already? It sounds like you want codes only so you can punish or screw with your players. I prefer co-operative storytelling approach versus the GM versus the players approach. If your game is players versus GM, then you have already lost the concept of fun game play.

[Lucius]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

You're re-inventing the wheel.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Re-inventing the palindromedary

 

Who?

 

Bolon. He is basically describing the way Psychological Complications are, in my experience, frequently used, as if it were some kind of new idea.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary will reinvent the wheel when it gets a round to it

[Lucius]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

The idea of an EGO roll to determine if your Psych Lim bites is' date=' frankly ludicrous: [/quote']

 

Frank may be ludicrous, you may be ludicrous, certainly I am ludicrous sometimes, but EGO rolls are not ludicrous.

 

why in the name of seven vaguely sensible things would someone with a high EGO be less limited by a Psych lim than someone with a low EGO? Surely someone with a high EGO is LESS likely to give in to temptation' date='[/quote']

 

I can see your point here, but I think Hugh Neilson among others would disagree

 

and from a point balance POV, it should not matter: 10 points of complications should have the same effect on all characters.

 

Now here, I must say that if the high EGO character got that high EGO for free, you would have a point (maybe you could spend it on EGO...) but since EGO costs points, you don't have one. A higher EGO roll is one of the benefits a character gets for investing points in EGO.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is ludicrous which may be the point, or at least a point

[Lucius]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

The ego roll is on a penalty that is inflicted in other games. I haven't seen it in 6th Ed and was a sort of house rule in our games. It would be against heavy guilt or psychological damage. It could also be against a penalty until it is repaid or repented. The higher ego would be able to function better to cope with his betrayal of his ethics. It may not be part of the rules but it makes sense and we have applied it. Up to the GM and how he would interpret the breakage.

 

Get real, in 2 adventures you would accumulate enough XP to buy down the code so it would become prespent XP. If you don't want to weigh down your game, then use a more virtue ethics method versus lawyer talk.

 

"Want to kill someone? Do it out of Obedience.

Want to steal something? Do it to restore Honour.

Want to rape and kill peasants? Well, they are only peasants..."

 

You are correct but you have missed something important. You say you do it for your overlord. Are you telling me that you would kill his property as peasants are without his permission and you have control to decide what he wants? That is the code we want and if you need to kill, you do so for your overlord. It sounds like you are proving my point. Thanks since it makes no sense for your point. This works great.

 

The code of the role is like any code with loopholes and situations where a smart player can work it to his advantage. Did a smarter player mess you up already? It sounds like you want codes only so you can punish or screw with your players. I prefer co-operative storytelling approach versus the GM versus the players approach. If your game is players versus GM, then you have already lost the concept of fun game play.

 

Do you actually have a point?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary would like you to point to it

[Greywind]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Has he made one yet? The entire thread from post one on down is nothing but commentary.

[Christopher]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

Actually' date=' a policeman or a soldier would not have a code vs killing. They would have a code vs murder. Murder being defined as an unjustified taking of life of another sentient being.[/quote']

I think that is overthinking and over-seperation. I only see three factors taht influence you when shooting someone:

Psych Comps against

Psych Comps in Favor

Situation

 

Let's take a Polcie officer with CvK (Medium), In Love with X (Strong), Protective of Innocents (Strong).

 

If there is someone training a weapon on innocents, I clearly see the Strong "Protective of innocents" overpower the CvK.

Now if the Person training the same weapon on the same innocents is Person X, thinks are more difficulty.

 

And now the trick is, what if you replace "protective of Innocents" with some other Strong Complication? Like "Protective of ones Faith".

Now there would be situation where this person would kill to protect his Faith.

 

Surely you think it is murder. But not because there is a objective definition of murder, but because you don't agree with "Faith" being worth killing for.

The same way the relatives of the person the Police shoots might not agree with "protecting innocents" beign worth to loose a relative.

 

I think that is true as long as moral standards are classified as objective in nature rather then subjective.

I don't see how Morals could ever be Objective.

 

I personally don't even try to do that. I just say that it feels wrong for me, so it must be wrong. No "i'm on the side of the law", "this is unethical" or other stuff. Those are all just a try to say "It feels wrong", while trying to deny to yourself that this interpretation is totally subjective.

 

The idea of an EGO roll to determine if your Psych Lim bites is, frankly ludicrous: why in the name of seven vaguely sensible things would someone with a high EGO be less limited by a Psych lim than someone with a low EGO? Surely someone with a high EGO is LESS likely to give in to temptation, and from a point balance POV, it should not matter: 10 points of complications should have the same effect on all characters.

 

You'd be better off forgetting the roll to determine if you can overcome a Psych Lim and just let players do it as they want but warn them that they are about to cross a line and (if they insist) impose a roll penalty until they do some sort of penance.

About the first, EGO is the Characteristic to overcome Compulsion, Mental Attacks and Interaction Skills. About the only influencign it doesn't affects is PREsence attacks (and there are some option to allow them as well).

But I also see this interaction as problemamtic. A Strong Lim should be worth the same for a 7 EGO guy and a 30 EGO guy. But the 30 EGO guy is less limited. And in some instaces I high EGO might make it harder to persuade someone to go against his Complication (the "to Stubborn to listen" problem).

[Manic Typist]

Re: Conduct Codes

 

You can't really write down "Code of the Samuraii" and just run with that because who knows what the code of the Samuraii was? Different Samuraii acted different ways, and, to the extent that there was a code, it probably runs something Bushido-y (although that was a philosophy based on someone's idea of what it SHOULD be), like:

 

 

I think you absolutely can, and I feel your post makes the point for me.

 

The player would have to develop at least a rough sense of what "Code of the Samurai" meant to his character (which can be based upon so many factors- historically speaking, any such code changed quite a bit!). ANY code, of Complication, can be evaded if the player is "smart enough" (i.e. cheap enough) to find some convoluted way of twisting his way out of it.... but why should he want to do that, and why let him? At that point, the issue isn't with the code but the player. If he didn't want this, he should have looked for a different Complication. Play the game, right?

 

Anyway, there could be a lot of drama (even an entire campaign!) around different PCs/NPCs wrestling with each other's interpretations of Code of the Samurai.