Jump to content

Philosophy of Complications: Code vs Killing


novi

Recommended Posts

I've actually had reason to build some Champions characters lately, and it's made me think about two staple complications, Secret Identity and Code vs Killing.  I'll be doing separate threads to help keep the discussion focused.

 

Code vs Killing was often a no-brainer before 6th edition, what with 150 points of complications to fill.  But now that 6th has brought it down to 75, a more reasonable number to fill, I'm not sure if most characters should be taking it rather than some more flavorful complications.  Some of it is the fact that for many campaigns, it is a fundamental part of being a superhero, and not having it would be more unusual for a character.  And in those games, somebody taking a CvK is getting 20 points for nothing.

 

But I wonder if I'm being too picky about that.  Obviously, it depends on the game and GM, but I am curious how other people feel about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will continue to add it to characters that it is appropriate for, although it will be one of the ones that is likely a 0 point complication. Your point about it being the norm in some campaigns is valid, and in those I just set it as a baseline unless you choose consciously to not take it (zero points either way). But you could then take Bloodthirsty or Vengeful or perhaps even Berserk when those would not be very appropriate with a CvK.

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a character gets hosed for having a CVK, it's worth points. It doesn't matter if all the other PCs have it too.

 

Personally, though, I've largely replaced it with "Code of the Hero", which covers much of the same territory while being less specific. It also works as "Code of the Golden Age Hero", Silver Age Hero, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bubba smith said:

is killing someone wotrh it ?? KNOW we're discussing fictional characters but t s the same principle

Depends on the person and circumstance. RL, I worked as an armed courier for a year. (2003), and when driving by, some people would look at the truck, like a dog watches someone with a plate of food walk by. In those situations, I was prepared to protect the truck, the satchel, my life with deadly force(company provided Glock 21. With Remington Bronze jacketed hollow points). Doing some deep thinking about it, especially with all the classes and practice, I came to the conclusion, that I would not be very broken up about taking the life of someone threatening me. In the game space, I believe this sort of defines the difference between Champions and Dark Champions. In Champions, CVK, is almost standard, very much shorthand for “Code of the hero”. In Dark Champions, it may be a serious liability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CVK is what allows the GM to plan on having the same villain(s) show up repeatedly, which allows for much greater quirkiness and individuality in the villain characters, and perhaps, some long-term plot arc involving long-lasting villains to occur according to concept.  In that sense, it's an aid to the GM and his campaign plan, if s/he has one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, death tribble said:

Unless you like things being bleak, Code vs Killing is valid. The police don't kill,  they arrest and prosecute with the rest of the legal apparatus. But they can kill if they feel they are protecting people (usually).

 

2 hours ago, Zeropoint said:

 

We all wish that were the case.

 

Some cops have a CvK - they go out of their way, putting themselves at risk, to avoid killing suspects. Other cops don't, but that only means they're willing to use deadly force when warranted (or the player doesn't want the issue to come up). Some cops have, "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" (and probably some other odious Psych Comps as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, assault said:

If a character gets hosed for having a CVK, it's worth points. It doesn't matter if all the other PCs have it too.

 

Personally, though, I've largely replaced it with "Code of the Hero", which covers much of the same territory while being less specific. It also works as "Code of the Golden Age Hero", Silver Age Hero, etc.

I do the same thing! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the points here is, a complication is something unique to the character.  If the GM says all PCs have to have a 0 pt CVK.  Everyone has a 0 pt CVK.  If they give you points for it, that's nicer.  But if you are the only one with the complication, then it will haunt you in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 2:45 AM, assault said:

 

 

Personally, though, I've largely replaced it with "Code of the Hero", which covers much of the same territory while being less specific. It also works as "Code of the Golden Age Hero", Silver Age Hero, etc.

There is a nice illustration of “Code of the Hero” in Issue 2 is Chuck Dixon’s comic,”Avalon”, where there is Superhero duo of a Brick and. Ghost. (Selective invisibility, and desolid but takes concentration).  The Brick is an idealist, and follows the code of the Hero. The ghost is a pragmatist. When rading a drug lab, the ghost runs across a satchel of cash, and takes it home. Later he shows it to his roommate, the brick, which seems to trigger the brick’s “enrage “ over violations of The Code of the Hero, and threat is the ghost to get rid of the money and donate it to an”good cause”. The ghost is not happy, as they both have trouble coming up with rent, and they are both “unlicensed vigilantes “.  But the ghost complies and a mysterious satchel with the note, “For the Kids” appears at a

nurse’s station at Children’s Hospital. Later, they find

out that the lab was a project by a regional crime boss. So they go raid his penthouse apartment. The brick caves in the front door and laughs at the kooks and their guns. The ghost slips in unnoticed and phases through walls looking for evidence. Well, he finds the safe, and as their mall food court jobs haven’t been adequate to make rent, the ghost  robs the safe. The crime boss, alerted by the brick ignoring the bullets and pushing over walls, runs to the safe, and finds it empty.  He yells to his looks to look for another accomplice. The brick, putting two and two together, flies into a rage, and starts bulldozing through the apartment after the ghost; completely ignoring the mission. Having his roommate charging after him, calling him a thief, ruins his concentration, and eventually he gets tossed in the swimming pool, with the brick making sure he can’t get out until the police arrive. The cops take everyone in for questioning. The Brick turns  in his partner for theft. He does a sorry perp walk to a cell. The brick expects a cell as well, but because of him catching and turning in a thief, he gets recruited by one of the UN approved super teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 1:22 PM, Doc Democracy said:

If you take the code versus killing you are asking the GM to pitch you situations where it would make some kind of sense to kill someone...

 

Or put you in situations where using your powers might have unintended lethal consequences.

 

In my first-ever Champions campaign, we were breaking into the local VIPER Nest, and our brick-martial artist Midnight noticed someone else in the stairwell sneaking around.  So he ran over there and kicked the mystery foe full force (to the GM's chagrin).  It was actually a DNPC hero whom the GM had included in case the Goons in Green were too tough for us.  However, the DNPC had low defenses, and Midnight hit dang hard.  (IIRC, he had 60 STR, and this was in the first edition rules where a martial punch did 1 1/2 times STR damage, and a martial kick did 2x STR damage.  So, 24d6 damage.  WIth knockback into a concrete wall one hex behind him.)  The poor DNPC hero was killed instantly.  Well, in addition to being an all-around bad thing, this activated Midnight's CvK, and he became afraid to attack full force unless he was absolutely positive the enemy could take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 1:02 PM, Cancer said:

CVK is what allows the GM to plan on having the same villain(s) show up repeatedly, which allows for much greater quirkiness and individuality in the villain characters, and perhaps, some long-term plot arc involving long-lasting villains to occur according to concept.  In that sense, it's an aid to the GM and his campaign plan, if s/he has one.

I disagree with Doc and slightly with Bolo. A disadvantage/complication is there to help you decide what your character will be like, and not like. It molds the character in the way he/she will react. It doesn't ask the GM to pitch you situations where it would make some kind of sense to kill someone: that sounds much like a sadistic GM going out of his way to punish you for holding the high ground. It's for roleplaying fun, not punishing the roleplayer. That's how I see it.

The majority of the players in the campaign I'm in take CvK for roleplaying fun. If someone nasty comes along, they easily find ways to stop the person so the authorities can handle the nasty. I guess it depends on your campaign mood and tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of a more interesting thought about CVK (Code Against Killing) is that it might not be a heroic thing. Like how Joseph Jostar disposed of Kars and Josuki (4) delt with Angelo. Both are technology still alive. One is floating throughout the galaxy frozen and canatonic, never to be awaken, let alone sane ever again. The other, merged with a huge boulder and reduced to being a creepy landmark for the city of Morio. Wouldn't you think either fate is worse than death (in a "I Have No Mouth, Yet I Must Scream" way)?

 

Of course, it would also leave the door open for either character's return, if Araki was a gamemaster. He is not. He is a mangaka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since someone else brought up anime, My Hero Academia (which should have its own thread) brings up the issues of property damage and injury. The Heroes in that universe have to be licensed, and all “powers” are heavily regulated and bureaucratized in typical Japanese fashion. Also, culturally they are uncomfortable with self defense. The Hero’s do their best to put the villains down, leaving the police to perform the investigation and evidence gathering. The pacifistic nature of Japanese society in the face of superpowers they can barely regulate leads to pressure for the Hero’s not to over react. For all their awesome power, the Heroes show. A lot of restraint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go off on a little tangent and bring up that it should make a difference on who is getting killed. In a setting with special powers and inhuman monsters, the public would be more understanding if a superhero killed a villain who could rip out people's hearts with a gesture and thought it was funny than a superhero who killed some henchmen. Supers killing supers or normals killing normals is one thing. Supers killing normals (even well-trained normals) is another. The idea is with some training and some equipment nearly anyone could be a police officer, soldier, armed courier, etc. But having a suit of custom powered armor, mutant powers, or being an alien is pretty much out. It's a different league. It would be like professional sports players crashing a pick-up game and crooning about how they won.

 

Superheroes should be held to a higher standard when dealing with normal people. If you can fly and punch holes through steel you should also be able to take care of some street toughs with guns without killing them. Otherwise, the public should turn on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These words are not my own:

 

Well, _these_ words are, but the words I'm going to provide you shortly are not mine.  It's not that I don't have lots and lots of words lying around, waiting to be used.  It's just that this guy summed up what felt like my very own thoughts on the Code Versus Killing, and did it far better than I ever could (which is to say, without sarcasm or hyperbole):

 

 

http://www.cellularsmoke.net/rpgs/newchampions_cvk.php

 

Enjoy.

 

Duke

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 6:07 AM, novi said:

I've actually had reason to build some Champions characters lately, and it's made me think about two staple complications, Secret Identity and Code vs Killing.  I'll be doing separate threads to help keep the discussion focused.

 

Code vs Killing was often a no-brainer before 6th edition, what with 150 points of complications to fill.  But now that 6th has brought it down to 75, a more reasonable number to fill, I'm not sure if most characters should be taking it rather than some more flavorful complications.  Some of it is the fact that for many campaigns, it is a fundamental part of being a superhero, and not having it would be more unusual for a character.  And in those games, somebody taking a CvK is getting 20 points for nothing.

 

But I wonder if I'm being too picky about that.  Obviously, it depends on the game and GM, but I am curious how other people feel about it.

Personally I find even the 75 mandatory complications to be too much.

For me it helps that I can drop it to less with "no-brainer" complications like CvK and Secret ID/Public ID.

I often only have 1-2 complications I actually want to take. Every comnplications besides the "no-brainers" I have to take on top only devalues the complications I actually want.

 

On 10/4/2018 at 8:02 PM, Cancer said:

CVK is what allows the GM to plan on having the same villain(s) show up repeatedly, which allows for much greater quirkiness and individuality in the villain characters, and perhaps, some long-term plot arc involving long-lasting villains to occur according to concept.  In that sense, it's an aid to the GM and his campaign plan, if s/he has one.

The GM can get the same effect with a Houserule, declaring it a "non-murder game". Or invoke "Nobody could have survived that".

 

A hunted should also imply mutual CvK/unkillability:

The joker has been through more "Nobody could have survived that" then the a entire gallery of 80's heroes. And in the cases where he did die, he managed to make a comback via nanobots implanted in someones brain or someone else picking up the mantle.
Meanwhile the joker does not want to kill Batman, because killing him is not the point. Getting Batman to aknowledge the insanity of it all is.

 

There was the Flashpoint Batman: In this story Bruce was killed by the mugger, wich drove his mother to become the Joker and his Dad to become a Batman that used guns and is way off CvK.

While this Batman still fights the joker, is he actually able to kill her? Or even hand her to the authorities wich will likely execute her? Both have a strong emotional motivation going back to way before their Superhero/Villain existence to keep each other alive. Yet both have strong motivaitons to be at odds too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tech said:

I disagree with Doc and slightly with Bolo. A disadvantage/complication is there to help you decide what your character will be like, and not like. It molds the character in the way he/she will react. It doesn't ask the GM to pitch you situations where it would make some kind of sense to kill someone: that sounds much like a sadistic GM going out of his way to punish you for holding the high ground. It's for roleplaying fun, not punishing the roleplayer. That's how I see it.

The majority of the players in the campaign I'm in take CvK for roleplaying fun. If someone nasty comes along, they easily find ways to stop the person so the authorities can handle the nasty. I guess it depends on your campaign mood and tone.

 

I agree with you about Psych Comps molding the character, but will point out that the CvK disadvantage/complication (like many disads/comps) has a "Situation Frequency" as part of it.  So if you have a CvK that's Common, it should come into play relatively often.  To quote 6E1:426 (and the italicized part isn't my doing - it's that way in the book) --

 

The frequency for a Psychological Complication depends on how often it has a significant negative impact on the character’s behavior during the game. Most mental conditions and personality quirks affect a character “all the time” — he always has his code of conduct, his fears, his hatreds, his compulsions. The issue for game purposes is how often the handicap arises in game play as something that seriously hinders the character. The mere fact that the condition exists doesn’t entitle the character to any Matching Complications points — he gets the points because his condition restricts his ability to act and function

in important game situations. Thus, as shown in the examples, most Psychological Complications tend to be Common.

 

That doesn't mean the GM has to constantly put the PC into situations where CvK is a critical component (like having lethal attacks make sense, or pitting the character against paper tigers all the time).  But all other things being equal, the character with CvK should act the part.  If he tries to use a 10d6 Blast on a normal mugger because "I need to take him down quick, and 8 BODY past defenses shouldn't kill him," the GM is justified in requiring an EGO roll first (at -5 if it's a Total CvK).  And as specifically noted in the text for Psychological Complications, a Total CvK means the character would even try to prevent others from killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disag

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

I agree with you about Psych Comps molding the character, but will point out that the CvK disadvantage/complication (like many disads/comps) has a "Situation Frequency" as part of it.  So if you have a CvK that's Common, it should come into play relatively often.  To quote 6E1:426 (and the italicized part isn't my doing - it's that way in the book) --

 

 

 

 

That doesn't mean the GM has to constantly put the PC into situations where CvK is a critical component (like having lethal attacks make sense, or pitting the character against paper tigers all the time).  But all other things being equal, the character with CvK should act the part.  If he tries to use a 10d6 Blast on a normal mugger because "I need to take him down quick, and 8 BODY past defenses shouldn't kill him," the GM is justified in requiring an EGO roll first (at -5 if it's a Total CvK).  And as specifically noted in the text for Psychological Complications, a Total CvK means the character would even try to prevent others from killing.

 

I'm agreeing with the above. The character with CvK better play the part and use restraint, or as Alverant said " Superheroes should be held to a higher standard when dealing with normal people. If you can fly and punch holes through steel you should also be able to take care of some street toughs with guns without killing them. Otherwise, the public should turn on you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...