Dealing with Killer Characters

[Christopher]

5 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I am currently playing a 7th level Paladin. I played him as a friendly idealistic type, but unfortunately, due to circumstances, he is now wearing the crown of a small kingdom, that immediately fell into civil war. He is played as a champion of the people, and treats most people with kindly respect. But the situation has forced him into hard choices, but the follower of the false saint, and the former Steward, and the evil ancient elven vampires, dont get much mercy. He’s kind to animals, and due to several lucky rolls with were rats, he considers them lucky, and they consider him a protector. After their good service and a couple of speeches, the public’s attitude towards them has changed for the better.  

 

Unfortunately OOC, because he is now King, most of the recent sessions involved wargaming battles,  and policy decisions which while I am enamoured of, the other players are nervous about the war, and want to get back to dungeon crawls. So at the completion of the current arc, I will have to sit for official coronation, and retire the character to friendly NPC status and start a new character. Too bad, abut will defer to the others wishes. 

"You have a king, unless I die or you find someone better."

Why not simply introduce a friendly NPC that will take over for the Paladin? Ideally some old mentor/rolemodel figure.

 

"You got a lot of good you still can do out there. Leave the court, strategy and politics to us old geezers who could not even fight a dire rate without breaking a leg anymore."

[Doc Democracy]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

harming a slave could often bear a stiffer penalty than harming a citizen

 

That is simply capitalist economy - even today there are harsher penalties for damaging property than there are for damaging other people....

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Christopher said:

A random paladin has no right to conscript people. The lord of the land does. The lord of the land is also responsible for enforcing a conscription. He runs the Military police that rounds up draft/conscription dodgers.

 

Now the Paladin can volunteer to take over such a duty. And he has to decide before he takes the job.

 

 

You are dodging the question.  That same random paladin does not get to decide that slavery is, or is not, legal.  Is conscription the equivalent of slavery such that, based on your apparent position that the Paladin must always oppose slavery, he must also oppose conscription?  Or is enforced military service a means of obtaining "the greatest good for the greatest number", the foundation of the LG alignment?  Clearly, the CG character would value liberty and freedom of choice, and could not support conscription.  But the LG character places benefits to society above benefits to the individual.

 

Is it OK for the paladin to just say "not my decision, the lord of the land made that decision so I can just watch unwilling conscripts be marched off to war", or must he actively oppose those military police efforts to round up unwilling conscripts?  If he actively assists them ("the greatest good for the greatest number"), is he violating or upholding the principals of the LG alignment?

 

If conscription is wrong, but he can just sit back and ignore it, is it equally OK for him to say "slavery was not my decision - it's OK for everyone else to own slaves and I will just watch as the slaves are captured, sold and forced to toil"?  If it is acceptable to force citizens to serve in order to hold off the orc hordes so the innocents will not be killed or enslaved by the orcs, why is it not OK to force them to labour in the fields so that innocents have food to eat, or to toil in the mines so that the army has arms and armor with which to defend innocents from the orc hordes?

 

10 hours ago, Christopher said:

And how many thousands of slaves were toiling on the fields or in the mines the exact same moment? Please do not bring up those "once in 10k" cases as if they are in any way representative.

We are talking about the "forced to work the fields and mines" slaves, not the "got to run the country" cases. Those might still be de-jure slaves, but de-facto they were not.

 

At what point are they "slaves"?  Economics have forced many throughout history to work the fields and mines.  It's work or starve.  Going back to your example, if the thieves had the option of toiling in the fields or the mines, in which case they would either be fed or be paid so they could legally acquire food, would it still be OK for them to steal instead of working for a living?  What if they had the option of joining the military (or if they were supposed to be conscripted into that same military, but had deserted)? 

 

Introducing "we must steal or we will starve" opens up shades of grey.  Other shades of grey exist.  You have your views as to how "Law" and "Good" would be balanced in these shades of grey.  I suggest others may have equally valid views of how these values would be balanced, creating the potential for multiple different decisions, none of which would compromise the ethics of a Paladin, some of which could even bring Paladins into conflict with each other.  The reasonable options will differ between various detailed factual situations (e.g. are the conscripts defending against an evil enemy, or going off to conquer neighbouring kingdoms; are the labourers benefiting the people, or building the wealth of the nobility; how are these soldiers/labourers treated in those roles; etc.), but in all but the most black and white situations, I think more than one alternative will exist that can reasonably fall within the parameters of the lawful good alignment.

[DShomshak]

On 12/10/2018 at 9:04 AM, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Yeah, I'm getting that impression as well.  I'm not seeing a way to do so without it feeling excessively heavy-handed, however, and leaving noses bent out of shape.  I don't want to lose friendships over a game.  And I've been friends with most of these players since the mid 1980s. 

 

Most of my Champions campaigns have lasted 3-4 years, and this one is coming up on Year 4.  It seems easier just to end it, and then if I start a new Champions game (and that seems like a fairly large "if"), I'll leave out Healing.  And Multiform.  And UBO powers.  And VPPs that don't require long change times. And...  well, you get the picture.

If you don't have fun running this campaign, soon enough your players won't have fun playing in it. End it. (It sounds like it's near its natural senescence point anyway.)

 

Come up with a final adventure or story arc that'll resolve some hanging subplots, give the PCs a chance to defeat a longtime enemy once and for all, and you can go out on a high note.

 

If the other players are absolutely determined only to do D&D/Pathfinder and this doesn't interest you... eh. Hm. Do you remember anyone expressing interest in any other games? Because trying something completely different now and then can be refreshing. Star Hero. Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG. Barbarians of Lemuria? Compromise between interests with Fantasy Hero, giving a chance for a type of setting that D&D doesn't support so well?

 

Dean Shomshak

[Scott Ruggels]

7 hours ago, Christopher said:

"You have a king, unless I die or you find someone better."

Why not simply introduce a friendly NPC that will take over for the Paladin? Ideally some old mentor/rolemodel figure.

 

"You got a lot of good you still can do out there. Leave the court, strategy and politics to us old geezers who could not even fight a dire rate without breaking a leg anymore."

 

Unfortunately, due to the line of succession, he's it. and he has to marry and produce heirs and spares, (Those vampire elves again hatching plots that killed off all the others), So probably his last command as a PC will be to charge the party with  carrying out operations.  Meanwhile the GM is heavily hinting at me, I should play a Bard. XD

[Duke Bushido]

19 hours ago, Christopher said:

Please do not bring up those "once in 10k" cases as if they are in any way representative.

 

 

 

I am sorry, Christopher.

 

You know I respect you a great deal.  It is because of this respect that I could not let a provably false statement of absolute stand uncorrected.  Building on inaccuracy weakens your position, and I have enjoyed this conversation too much to watch it degrade into wildly inaccurate shouting match.

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

As for the overall Paladin thing. 1.) it has drifted away from the initial premise, on how to deal with killer characters, and has become no longer useful for that, and 2.) On the subject of Paladins, it's rather evident that a Paladin would conform to the precepts of what ever deity and  organization sponsored them.   Follow the theology, and you'll find the motivations. 3.) Why are we debating Paladins in a Champions forum thread? Shouldn't it be in Fantasy Hero?

Yes I am guilty of  aiding and abetting this with my earlier comments, but, boy has this drifted off.

 

 

[Christopher]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Is it OK for the paladin to just say "not my decision, the lord of the land made that decision so I can just watch unwilling conscripts be marched off to war", or must he actively oppose those military police efforts to round up unwilling conscripts?  If he actively assists them ("the greatest good for the greatest number"), is he violating or upholding the principals of the LG alignment?

Both would be valid interpretations.

You could see it as bad that people are forced to fight.

You could see it as unlawfull that people are dodging the draft.

And even somewhat bad that they would abbandon their society to a designated evil enemy (that is what Ork Hordes are in D&D, designated evil).

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

At what point are they "slaves"?  Economics have forced many throughout history to work the fields and mines.  It's work or starve.

They are not owned and forced to work as property. They are forced to work by the laws of nature to live. The only good you can do for those people is improove their local Social Structure. Or help them move to greener pastures if they ask.

A common theme of slaves is that they would prefer being anywhere else - even dead - rather then in their current position. If that condition is not given, there is nothing to free them from. That make them overlap with general purpose refugees. Just the thing they are fleeing from is differnt.

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Going back to your example, if the thieves had the option of toiling in the fields or the mines, in which case they would either be fed or be paid so they could legally acquire food, would it still be OK for them to steal instead of working for a living?  What if they had the option of joining the military (or if they were supposed to be conscripted into that same military, but had deserted)?  

They were city children. Those rarely got the option to work for a living. But considering they were literally the adventure hook, there was obviously an option to help them.

The punishment for stealing was just movie medieval soceity level for orphanned children.

You yourself admitted the situation was damn clear. "Good trumps law".

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

I am sorry, Christopher.

 

You know I respect you a great deal.  It is because of this respect that I could not let a provably false statement of absolute stand uncorrected.  Building on inaccuracy weakens your position, and I have enjoyed this conversation too much to watch it degrade into wildly inaccurate shouting match. 

Are you saying it was not a rare case when greek slaves ran the government? How many government positions were there to fill? How can you be a slave if you and people like you literally run the government?

How was it in anyway helpfull to enslave the government workers, rather then say - pay them instead?

Slavery vs free workers is a economic tradeoff. The difficulty of managing the slaves vs the Cost of just paying them properly. And enslaved government workers could do a lot of damage to your nations economy, if they ever wanted too. Wich you have to add on the "difficulty of managing the slaves" side.

Unless they were just menial clerks. You know, people hauling paper rather then ore or wood.

[Christopher]

7 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Unfortunately, due to the line of succession, he's it. and he has to marry and produce heirs and spares, (Those vampire elves again hatching plots that killed off all the others), So probably his last command as a PC will be to charge the party with  carrying out operations.  Meanwhile the GM is heavily hinting at me, I should play a Bard. XD

That is pretty wierd. I may be thinking to historically, but normally getting Priest/Paladinhood implies forsaking his Right of Inheritance. So at tops he should be able to be a Regent, not a King.
But I guess the GM just really wants to get rid of the Paladin for future stories there.

[Christopher]

If there is one Character where I would say "Now that is a Paladin.", it has to be Captain Dylan Hunt from Andromeda.

He was literall out to recreate the Galactic Government (can not get more Lawfull then that). But he was never willing to sacrifice the good part to do so.

Ocassionally he skirted the local laws a bit, but it was never carelessly or without a really good cause.

[Greywind]

3 hours ago, Christopher said:

That is pretty wierd. I may be thinking to historically, but normally getting Priest/Paladinhood implies forsaking his Right of Inheritance. So at tops he should be able to be a Regent, not a King.
But I guess the GM just really wants to get rid of the Paladin for future stories there.

 

Don't recall that being an issue anywhere in any RPG.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher said:

If there is one Character where I would say "Now that is a Paladin.", it has to be Captain Dylan Hunt from Andromeda.

He was literall out to recreate the Galactic Government (can not get more Lawfull then that). But he was never willing to sacrifice the good part to do so.

Ocassionally he skirted the local laws a bit, but it was never carelessly or without a really good cause.

 

Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files is Butcher's take on a paladin.

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

As for the overall Paladin thing. 1.) it has drifted away from the initial premise, on how to deal with killer characters, and has become no longer useful for that, and 2.) On the subject of Paladins, it's rather evident that a Paladin would conform to the precepts of what ever deity and  organization sponsored them.   Follow the theology, and you'll find the motivations. 3.) Why are we debating Paladins in a Champions forum thread? Shouldn't it be in Fantasy Hero?

Yes I am guilty of  aiding and abetting this with my earlier comments, but, boy has this drifted off.

 

 

 

It is RPG crack.  Arguments about alignment and especially how that affects paladins have raged for decades.  It was why I decided not to indulge myself.

 

As Hugh said though, the arguments about alignments are very similar to arguments about code versus killing etc and it should demonstrate that no-one has a monopoly on the truth of these things...it shows how much work has to be done pre-game to ensure everyone is on the same page - which is indeed very pertinent to dealing with killer characters.  If the right work is done at the start of the game to ensure everyone is on board with the intended tone, most major conflicts can be avoided.

 

Doc

[Scott Ruggels]

On 12/13/2018 at 7:41 PM, Christopher said:

That is pretty wierd. I may be thinking to historically, but normally getting Priest/Paladinhood implies forsaking his Right of Inheritance. So at tops he should be able to be a Regent, not a King.
But I guess the GM just really wants to get rid of the Paladin for future stories there.

 

Getting rid of the Paladin was partially my fault as i had not played in a strategic level D&D game in decades, and I kind of ran away with it, until the other players got annoyed that I spent the most time talking and we didn't go into dungeons any more, so for the sake of amity among the other players and  because of my unmitigated spotlight hogging, the GM and I decided to retire the character, and specifically wanted me to play something that wasn't a fighter, or a member of the nobility, and give other people a chance to lead and make decisions for the party.  (even in a single one shot in the same campaign world a few weeks ago, i played a "Not paladin", named Magnus, who was a man (?) without a filter, a master of the one line burn,  and kind of a snarky dick to anyone at, or below his station. He was definitely a "not-Paladin (Lawful neutral), but he was a fighter, and ended up leading the party, because he had the sharpest teeth and the fewest number of character flaws.)  So tochange thigns up the GM wants me to play something that won't end up as the party leader, or a combat monster. (Hey, 41 years of RPG experience, kind of makes it instinctive to put my token on the map "just so", and then have my combat advantages all stacked up and filed neatly. My weapons are clean and ready XD).

[Scott Ruggels]

Oh it was a relief to get out of my paladin's Jacket and tie of my Paladin, tho...

 I dearly love my Paladin, but I have to think (overthink) every decision and move,  and then have to extemporaneously come up with inspiring speeches and eloquent repartee', which for the player was often more stressful than fighting elven vampires. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, Christopher said:

Both would be valid interpretations.

You could see it as bad that people are forced to fight.

You could see it as unlawfull that people are dodging the draft.

And even somewhat bad that they would abbandon their society to a designated evil enemy (that is what Ork Hordes are in D&D, designated evil).

 

Whether Orcs are impossible to redeem varies by game as well.  Are all half-orcs similarly tainted?  But we can always make the other army human as well.  In any case, we appear to have settled on this as an area where differences of opinion could easily exist within a single alignment, and Paladins might well find themselves in conflict rather than lockstep agreement.

 

On 12/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, Christopher said:

They are not owned and forced to work as property. They are forced to work by the laws of nature to live. The only good you can do for those people is improove their local Social Structure. Or help them move to greener pastures if they ask.

A common theme of slaves is that they would prefer being anywhere else - even dead - rather then in their current position. If that condition is not given, there is nothing to free them from. That make them overlap with general purpose refugees. Just the thing they are fleeing from is differnt.

 

It's man-made economics which force many "wage-slaves" to work.  You can claim a difference, but if the choice is "work or you and your family die", those affected may not see the difference.  And a well-treated slave may not see the alternative of economic slavery as "greener pastures".  Similarly, that PoW forced to work may perceive himself as a slave.  Isn't he?  He is forced to toil for another's benefit, with no choice in the matter.  That convicted criminal similarly likely considers himself enslaved.  You dismissed that one pretty lightly above, but I suggest it again depends on circumstances.  What was his crime?  Did he receive a fair trial?  Could he have been wrongfully convicted?

 

Doesn't the Paladin's warhorse eventually achieve an intelligence level of 3+, like a sentient being?  Is the horse a slave to the Paladin?  

 

On 12/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, Christopher said:

They were city children. Those rarely got the option to work for a living. But considering they were literally the adventure hook, there was obviously an option to help them.

The punishment for stealing was just movie medieval soceity level for orphanned children.

You yourself admitted the situation was damn clear. "Good trumps law".

 

That specific situation?  Sure.  But just letting them move on seems like somewhat less than upholding the precepts of Law and Good.  How does the Paladin recognize, in-character, an "adventure hook"?  And why are you so accepting of this movie-medieval punishment when you previously stated that "magic changes everything"?

 

The fact that I would suggest Good trumps Law in turning the children in for mutilation does not mean the only other option is "let them be on their merry way".  I am asking you what action the others suggested as "good" and what you think the Paladin should have done, rather than the single choice he should have rejected.

 

On 12/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, Christopher said:

Are you saying it was not a rare case when greek slaves ran the government? How many government positions were there to fill? How can you be a slave if you and people like you literally run the government?

How was it in anyway helpfull to enslave the government workers, rather then say - pay them instead?

Slavery vs free workers is a economic tradeoff. The difficulty of managing the slaves vs the Cost of just paying them properly. And enslaved government workers could do a lot of damage to your nations economy, if they ever wanted too. Wich you have to add on the "difficulty of managing the slaves" side.

Unless they were just menial clerks. You know, people hauling paper rather then ore or wood.

 

Well...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

 

There have been many variations on the term "slave" throughout history.  You are insisting on seeing only one.

[Hugh Neilson]

One final comment - to me, the CG character would likely oppose slavery in all variations, as it is a constraint on freedom and liberty, which is central to the 'C' element of their alignment.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

, as it is a constraint on freedom and liberty, which is central to the 'C' element of their alignment.

 

That's an interesting take on Chaotic that I had not considered before.  

 

It also seems that-- and I admit to being quite intrigued with this next bit- that by this model (if I follow your thinking) then for a CG character,  "Good" is more a personal consideration than a societal one, though there would likely be commonly-held beliefs between the two of what defines "Evil.". So a chaotic good anarchist is entirely possible, if he truly believed that all government was a yoke that strained personal freedom, or a chaotic good arsonist if he truly believed that shelter in some way softened or weakened people, or deprived them of a connection to the natural world that he believed to be vital and necessary for their health or spiritual well-being. 

 

If I follow you, of course. 

 

I like the surface of this thought.  I'm going to find some time to play with that a bit.  Thanks, Hugh! 

[Hugh Neilson]

Credited to Gygax at http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html:

 

While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of actions as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great. By promoting the philosophy of chaotic good, characters of this alignments seek to spread their values throughout the world. To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.

 

Like an LG character, I would expect a CG character will compromise Liberty over Good in some instances, and Good over Liberty in others.

[LoneWolf]

Do the characters without code vs killing have any limitations stating they are casual killers or the like.  Normally in a champions campaign there is an understood 0pt reluctance to kill.  This is not the case in a dark champions campaign, but a standard champions campaign is usually assumed to be this way. 

 

Actually if the players with a complication are ignoring it you can in fact enforce it. At the least you can require them to either buy it off, or change it to something else.  This is no different than a character with a vulnerability choosing to ignore the extra damage.  You players with the code against killing need to decide if they want to keep it.

[IndianaJoe3]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Do the characters without code vs killing have any limitations stating they are casual killers or the like.  Normally in a champions campaign there is an understood 0pt reluctance to kill.  This is not the case in a dark champions campaign, but a standard champions campaign is usually assumed to be this way. 

 

I've always viewed the lack of a Psych Comp regarding killing (either way) as being similar to a soldier or a good cop. They aren't looking to take anyone out, but there are circumstances when they will use lethal force.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

5 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Do the characters without code vs killing have any limitations stating they are casual killers or the like.  Normally in a champions campaign there is an understood 0pt reluctance to kill.  This is not the case in a dark champions campaign, but a standard champions campaign is usually assumed to be this way. 

 

Actually if the players with a complication are ignoring it you can in fact enforce it. At the least you can require them to either buy it off, or change it to something else.  This is no different than a character with a vulnerability choosing to ignore the extra damage.  You players with the code against killing need to decide if they want to keep it.

 

32 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I've always viewed the lack of a Psych Comp regarding killing (either way) as being similar to a soldier or a good cop. They aren't looking to take anyone out, but there are circumstances when they will use lethal force.

If the lack of a psylim doesn't indicate "can kill if player desires", then what would?  A "casual killer" psylim would mean they kill when the player doesn't want to, after all.  A soclim is based on how society perceives the character so is unfitting until the character kills and word spreads (and is compatible with CvK anyways).

[Scott Ruggels]

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I've always viewed the lack of a Psych Comp regarding killing (either way) as being similar to a soldier or a good cop. They aren't looking to take anyone out, but there are circumstances when they will use lethal force.

 

Agreed, this is the same way as I feel.  None of our Champions were ever silver age. I was also fairly anti-censorship, and viewed The Comics Code Authority with contempt (and bought lots of underground comic back in the 70’s). So, naturally as a player, I never used CVK. Any GM that insisted, I would thank for the invitation, but politely decline. But that is part of the issue. The mutual agreement among the players should be hammered out as to the tone and content of the campaign. There are plenty of games I have declined or walked out of, so it is fine if the GM wants to run a strict Silver Age campaign.  Now, I suppose I had a Dark Champions  attitude a decade before the book came out. But by the time it came out, I mostly had cycled out of superheroes, and into DI, and FH. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:08 PM, LoneWolf said:

Do the characters without code vs killing have any limitations stating they are casual killers or the like.  Normally in a champions campaign there is an understood 0pt reluctance to kill. 

 

23 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

I've always viewed the lack of a Psych Comp regarding killing (either way) as being similar to a soldier or a good cop. They aren't looking to take anyone out, but there are circumstances when they will use lethal force.

 

22 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

If the lack of a psylim doesn't indicate "can kill if player desires", then what would?  A "casual killer" psylim would mean they kill when the player doesn't want to, after all.  A soclim is based on how society perceives the character so is unfitting until the character kills and word spreads (and is compatible with CvK anyways).

 

20 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 So, naturally as a player, I never used CVK. Any GM that insisted, I would thank for the invitation, but politely decline. But that is part of the issue. The mutual agreement among the players should be hammered out as to the tone and content of the campaign. There are plenty of games I have declined or walked out of, so it is fine if the GM wants to run a strict Silver Age campaign. 

 

In full agreement with Scott - the group needs to be on the same page as to the game they want to play.  From there, I think there are a variety of ways to go on the default complications.  Perhaps my game will be not so silver age in tone, but carries the expectation is that the PCs will be unwilling to kill.  This could be a game where their setting a shining example in a grim, grey world means that their refusal to kill will create serious problems for them.  In this case, I could mandate that CvK is required, or that CvK is expected,  but the occasional character could reduce that to "reluctant to kill".  They should get the CP for that limitation, and we should expect that part of the drama of the game will be the issues they face by virtue of their unwillingness to kill.  Or I could mandate that everyone has CvK as a campaign ground rule, and since everyone has it, no one gets any points for it, but if it really will limit them compared to NPCs, that seems unfair.

 

But maybe my game will be True Blue Silver Age, where the world is very friendly to those who will not kill.  How often was Adam West Batman disadvantaged by his refusal to kill?  As the limitation is rarely or never limiting, I feel much better about making it a campaign standard.  In fact, if those who are prepared to kill, or even use lethal force, are viewed negatively from society, and/or suffer other drawbacks in the game, any willingness to kill is limiting.  Killer PCs will find no government sponsorship, the police will hunt them, as will more legitimate Superheroes, so that willingness is a limitation.

 

A middle of the road approach would be the default Reluctance to Kill, where casual killers are not tolerated, but use of lethal force is accepted as sometimes necessary, at least, so PCs showing appropriate restraint will be accepted, and a full on refusal to kill/use lethal force will actually be limiting.  Arrow forms a good framework - he has faced significant negative repercussions for casual use of lethal force, from enemies finding it pretty easy to frame him and turn the population against him to police task forces hunting him to the FBI digging until they find the evidence needed to jail him.  Meanwhile, the Flash, who has used lethal force but has been far more restrained, is adored by the population and enjoys a positive relationship with law enforcement.

 

Which character is truly limited depends on the game world they inhabit.

[bubba smith]

psycological limitation willing to kill

[starblaze]

On 11/28/2018 at 12:49 PM, BoloOfEarth said:

 

They might even look at that as a good thing - let the impairment serve as a reminder to the criminals of the consequences of their actions.

 

One of the tipping points, to me, was last session when the heroes were fighting the vampires atop a 5-story tower of a local mansion.  Four of the vampire minions grabbed four enthralled young women and held them over the side of the tower, threatening to drop them.  The mage just shrugged and said, "A 5-story fall will hurt a lot, but it probably won't kill them.  I can just go down and heal them afterward."  Since the team teleporter immediately used a multiple attack to UAA teleport the women to safety, it quickly became a moot point, but it illustrates the players' attitudes.

This is incredibly stupid, even falling from one story could be deadly.  They could fall wrong and break their neck.