pawsplay

I've won real-ish armor, and I think the greatest danger you would face in medieval combat was cooking alive like a Hot Pocket from your own body heat after 10-15 minutes of heavy combat.

Desolidification would work a lot better for this.
 
The big problem with suppress or other adjustment powers is that by default it targets a specific power rather than working against a special effect.  You can use an advantage to make it affect anything with a specific special effect, but then it only affects a single power.  This can also be increased with another advantage. For this power to work the way it should, you need to +1/2 add the advantage variable effect.  That would allow it to drain a single plant-based power.  Without the advantage expanded effect it could suppress an entangle or a barrier, but not both at one time. Expanded effect will add another +1/2 advantage.  Since you are already increasing it by two to cover both the DEF and BODY, that brings the advantage up to + 1 ½.  So, the active cost on this is 120 points.  To make matters worse you forget about change environment.  
 

Basically the Sad Puppies came up with their own alternative slate and then used bloc voting to try to push their preferences for the Hugos. Nothing more than a desperate grab by bitter white men. Meanwhile Correia has continued to write (and win awards), undercutting his complaint.

Back in the 90s, I knew a guy in college who got in trouble for computer crimes. Well, the FBI showed up at his hearings and made him a deal, and he got off basically scott free in return for helping them catch other computer criminals. Back in 1995, the FBI's expertise on computer crime was embarrassing to the point of being anachronistic. I see a world with modern supers being much the same way; super criminals are so beyond conventional law enforcement that agencies will readily back almost anyone able and willing to take on the hero mantle. It would be much like the old gunfighter days, where the line between sheriff, bounty hunter, and murderer could be quite permeable.

Back in the 90s, I knew a guy in college who got in trouble for computer crimes. Well, the FBI showed up at his hearings and made him a deal, and he got off basically scott free in return for helping them catch other computer criminals. Back in 1995, the FBI's expertise on computer crime was embarrassing to the point of being anachronistic. I see a world with modern supers being much the same way; super criminals are so beyond conventional law enforcement that agencies will readily back almost anyone able and willing to take on the hero mantle. It would be much like the old gunfighter days, where the line between sheriff, bounty hunter, and murderer could be quite permeable.

Back in the 90s, I knew a guy in college who got in trouble for computer crimes. Well, the FBI showed up at his hearings and made him a deal, and he got off basically scott free in return for helping them catch other computer criminals. Back in 1995, the FBI's expertise on computer crime was embarrassing to the point of being anachronistic. I see a world with modern supers being much the same way; super criminals are so beyond conventional law enforcement that agencies will readily back almost anyone able and willing to take on the hero mantle. It would be much like the old gunfighter days, where the line between sheriff, bounty hunter, and murderer could be quite permeable.

Yeah just an example of how the comic book world is frozen in amber. smh. In my own games I have a government program that is kinda like the suicide squad, but not so extreme. It would cost millions to contain a super, so finding ways to "redeem" them would be a real cost savings. Use "reformed" villians to hunt "wild" supers.

About five acres of good farmland will support one person, so for a 10,000 person city (like early medieval London) you would need at least 78 square miles of farmland. Assuming less good farmland and twice the population, you would need at least 300 square miles.

Evil people want something. However depraved, callous, and cruel they are, they are looking to fulfill a human need. By contrast, something that is Utterly Evil gains satisfaction only by doing the kind of evil things it embodies. Among other things, this means if the creature pretends to be fair, magnanimous, or to be serving a greater purpose, it is always lying. It's a lot easier to pretend something that has a grain of truth or that you somewhat understand, so an Utterly Evil demon has to completely manufacture all of its behavior when it pretends to help you. There's nothing about it really capable or deserving of redemption. Like Overconfidence or Narcissism or a Hero's Code, it does have a certain predictability which can be exploited.
Further, if some magic or miracle requires a non-evil motivation to work, it never works for the demon, except under the circumstances one might defy a Total Psychological Limitation.
That said, I probably wouldn't make it a Total limitation unless that kind of magic came up very often. Although its evil is absolute, its actual behavior is only bound by its preferences in the moment. I can conceive of a demon that always does the most evil thing, not necessarily the one that meets its own personal goals, but I don't think that's much like the demons I've encountered in fiction.

Billions? Even in our world that makes them vanishingly rare. In a premodern setting they would be virtually nonexistent.

As noted above, in Tolkien, Melkor and his creatures were unable to create life. Orcs are perversions of men and orcs, and therefore, in principle, are capable of salvation. Just as the Dark Powers can't create a soul, presumably they can't destroy one. However, it is implicit in Tolkien's writing that no mortal being can resist temptation forever. Without the Light and the One, mortal beings cannot prevail. Orcs were lost a long time ago, and their bodies and minds burn in the presence of things that are holy or forged with good magic, but you could, seemingly, try to redeem a single orc. But for all Gandalf's talk of mercy, Tolkien's world seems to accept the necessity of war and valor against evil, and so the heroes don't waste any more time trying to redeem an orc than they would a Haradrim or Numenorean (two human ethnicities of Middle-earth), or for that matter, more than an elf would waste time redeeming a dwarf that represented any kind of threat to them. But in principle, at least... Gollum, who was a thrall to the Ring for a long, long time, could still feel sympathy and conflict, despite having long been corrupted by the darkness. Orcs, in Tolkien, simply don't know any kindness, so what has been done to their bodies, minds, and souls would be difficult to heal.
 
In early D&D worlds, orcs were creations of their patron immortals and deities. Their nature reflects their creation. Nonetheless, they are intelligent creatures and can, in principle, be reasoned with and even redeemed. That's probably not going to happen in a typical storyline, but there is still room for the pathetic or tragic orc that earns the mercy of the party, and maybe even some kind of friendship. It's also worth noting that in virtually all D&D worlds, orcs are rarely purebred, and all the traits that can be found in trolls, humans, goblins, and the like, can be found in orcs, even apart from their nature as intelligent humanoid beings.
 
In Palladium, orcs are simply a species of intelligent beings. More brutal and less intelligent than humans, on average, they nonetheless possess all the variation and potentiality of any civilized being. An orc could be a soldier, a thief, a baker, an innkeeper. Someone might dislike orcs because of a given population's behavior, or because they don't like something about orc temperament, but orcs aren't "evil" in Palladium in any metaphysical or psychological sense, although many orcs, especially mercenaries and brigands, might individually be evil.
 
Yrth (the GURPS fantasy world) has orcs similar to Palladium ones. Given that they are essentially a brutish subhuman race, this raises, on one hand, questions about the morality of slaying orcs, and on the other hand, implications in play about that touch on real-world history and prejudices about foreigners. They are a convenient guiltless foe, but on reflection, it's not clear if an enlightened view of orcs would really permit such prejudice. Again, orcs are tougher, more brutal and generally less intelligent than humans, but individual orcs exhibit the same diversity of characteristics as humans. A genius orc is still smarter than an average human. The backstory of Yrth highlights some of this ambiguity, as the world in its current form basically exists because the elves tried to commit genocide against the orcs, back before humans, goblins, and the rest arrived on Yrth through a magical accident.

As noted above, in Tolkien, Melkor and his creatures were unable to create life. Orcs are perversions of men and orcs, and therefore, in principle, are capable of salvation. Just as the Dark Powers can't create a soul, presumably they can't destroy one. However, it is implicit in Tolkien's writing that no mortal being can resist temptation forever. Without the Light and the One, mortal beings cannot prevail. Orcs were lost a long time ago, and their bodies and minds burn in the presence of things that are holy or forged with good magic, but you could, seemingly, try to redeem a single orc. But for all Gandalf's talk of mercy, Tolkien's world seems to accept the necessity of war and valor against evil, and so the heroes don't waste any more time trying to redeem an orc than they would a Haradrim or Numenorean (two human ethnicities of Middle-earth), or for that matter, more than an elf would waste time redeeming a dwarf that represented any kind of threat to them. But in principle, at least... Gollum, who was a thrall to the Ring for a long, long time, could still feel sympathy and conflict, despite having long been corrupted by the darkness. Orcs, in Tolkien, simply don't know any kindness, so what has been done to their bodies, minds, and souls would be difficult to heal.
 
In early D&D worlds, orcs were creations of their patron immortals and deities. Their nature reflects their creation. Nonetheless, they are intelligent creatures and can, in principle, be reasoned with and even redeemed. That's probably not going to happen in a typical storyline, but there is still room for the pathetic or tragic orc that earns the mercy of the party, and maybe even some kind of friendship. It's also worth noting that in virtually all D&D worlds, orcs are rarely purebred, and all the traits that can be found in trolls, humans, goblins, and the like, can be found in orcs, even apart from their nature as intelligent humanoid beings.
 
In Palladium, orcs are simply a species of intelligent beings. More brutal and less intelligent than humans, on average, they nonetheless possess all the variation and potentiality of any civilized being. An orc could be a soldier, a thief, a baker, an innkeeper. Someone might dislike orcs because of a given population's behavior, or because they don't like something about orc temperament, but orcs aren't "evil" in Palladium in any metaphysical or psychological sense, although many orcs, especially mercenaries and brigands, might individually be evil.
 
Yrth (the GURPS fantasy world) has orcs similar to Palladium ones. Given that they are essentially a brutish subhuman race, this raises, on one hand, questions about the morality of slaying orcs, and on the other hand, implications in play about that touch on real-world history and prejudices about foreigners. They are a convenient guiltless foe, but on reflection, it's not clear if an enlightened view of orcs would really permit such prejudice. Again, orcs are tougher, more brutal and generally less intelligent than humans, but individual orcs exhibit the same diversity of characteristics as humans. A genius orc is still smarter than an average human. The backstory of Yrth highlights some of this ambiguity, as the world in its current form basically exists because the elves tried to commit genocide against the orcs, back before humans, goblins, and the rest arrived on Yrth through a magical accident.

As noted above, in Tolkien, Melkor and his creatures were unable to create life. Orcs are perversions of men and orcs, and therefore, in principle, are capable of salvation. Just as the Dark Powers can't create a soul, presumably they can't destroy one. However, it is implicit in Tolkien's writing that no mortal being can resist temptation forever. Without the Light and the One, mortal beings cannot prevail. Orcs were lost a long time ago, and their bodies and minds burn in the presence of things that are holy or forged with good magic, but you could, seemingly, try to redeem a single orc. But for all Gandalf's talk of mercy, Tolkien's world seems to accept the necessity of war and valor against evil, and so the heroes don't waste any more time trying to redeem an orc than they would a Haradrim or Numenorean (two human ethnicities of Middle-earth), or for that matter, more than an elf would waste time redeeming a dwarf that represented any kind of threat to them. But in principle, at least... Gollum, who was a thrall to the Ring for a long, long time, could still feel sympathy and conflict, despite having long been corrupted by the darkness. Orcs, in Tolkien, simply don't know any kindness, so what has been done to their bodies, minds, and souls would be difficult to heal.
 
In early D&D worlds, orcs were creations of their patron immortals and deities. Their nature reflects their creation. Nonetheless, they are intelligent creatures and can, in principle, be reasoned with and even redeemed. That's probably not going to happen in a typical storyline, but there is still room for the pathetic or tragic orc that earns the mercy of the party, and maybe even some kind of friendship. It's also worth noting that in virtually all D&D worlds, orcs are rarely purebred, and all the traits that can be found in trolls, humans, goblins, and the like, can be found in orcs, even apart from their nature as intelligent humanoid beings.
 
In Palladium, orcs are simply a species of intelligent beings. More brutal and less intelligent than humans, on average, they nonetheless possess all the variation and potentiality of any civilized being. An orc could be a soldier, a thief, a baker, an innkeeper. Someone might dislike orcs because of a given population's behavior, or because they don't like something about orc temperament, but orcs aren't "evil" in Palladium in any metaphysical or psychological sense, although many orcs, especially mercenaries and brigands, might individually be evil.
 
Yrth (the GURPS fantasy world) has orcs similar to Palladium ones. Given that they are essentially a brutish subhuman race, this raises, on one hand, questions about the morality of slaying orcs, and on the other hand, implications in play about that touch on real-world history and prejudices about foreigners. They are a convenient guiltless foe, but on reflection, it's not clear if an enlightened view of orcs would really permit such prejudice. Again, orcs are tougher, more brutal and generally less intelligent than humans, but individual orcs exhibit the same diversity of characteristics as humans. A genius orc is still smarter than an average human. The backstory of Yrth highlights some of this ambiguity, as the world in its current form basically exists because the elves tried to commit genocide against the orcs, back before humans, goblins, and the rest arrived on Yrth through a magical accident.

As humorous as this is... when I was a kid I read a book about the Japanese internment in the USA during WWII. At one point, the main character notices an older Asian man doing gardening. He is perplexed, but he finds out from another boy that the man in Chinese. They then have a discussion about how to tell Japanese people from Chinese people.
 
And you have the same people who will salute a vet when he's wearing his uniform on Veteran's Day and then turn around and then not support Social Security, the VA, and the other things this person needs to survive. Because they don't think of the veteran and the person with a disability as being the same person.
 
So it's not hard for me to believe some people in the MCU hate mutants and not mutates, or they hate mutants and mutates but not science experiments, or they don't have a clear understanding of the difference between them, or any number of other configurations of attitude.

As humorous as this is... when I was a kid I read a book about the Japanese internment in the USA during WWII. At one point, the main character notices an older Asian man doing gardening. He is perplexed, but he finds out from another boy that the man in Chinese. They then have a discussion about how to tell Japanese people from Chinese people.
 
And you have the same people who will salute a vet when he's wearing his uniform on Veteran's Day and then turn around and then not support Social Security, the VA, and the other things this person needs to survive. Because they don't think of the veteran and the person with a disability as being the same person.
 
So it's not hard for me to believe some people in the MCU hate mutants and not mutates, or they hate mutants and mutates but not science experiments, or they don't have a clear understanding of the difference between them, or any number of other configurations of attitude.

I think it rings true on several layers. First of all, as noted above, mutants have been used to tell parallel stories about civil rights struggles. Originally race was often the salient comparison, but in recent years, parallels have been drawn to sexual minorities.
Second, the Silver Age was a time of social upheaval. Mutants could be your kids, anybody's kids. The message being that we should have compassion for each other, even if we are drawn into battles that weren't ours to begin with.
Third, there is a message of individuality. The mutants is a very American story. Someone who can walk through walls or lift a bus isn't just different, they are powerful. And there can be an impulse to lash out when we see others have a power we don't have. But ultimately, for society to work, we have to have some faith in each other. We might worry about someone taking a rifle and shooting up a story, or rioters tearing up a store, or cop abusing their authority, or an education system misinforming our children. But to actually solve those problems requires seeing past the person in front of us, and envisioning how a society operates where we are all free, and where we have the potential to do good or harm. We see this fear in an older generation looking down at a younger generation with access to online tools they never dreamed of, and a younger generation looking at an older generation on a road they no longer with to follow, with old ideas about politics, the environment, and so forth. So I think there is a powerful metaphor in the mutant, that of someone who is powerful but whose right to make decisions has to be respected. And Magneto represents the banding together with your own kind for protection, and Professor X represents trying to find a connection with the wider world so there can be some hope.
Fourth, mutant powers are really about human potential. With our minds and our technology we can completely change the world like no other animal ever has on Earth. Mutants represent those among us whose capabilities drag us into the future, whether we are ready or not. A mutant who can read your mind is like a phone that can read your shopping history; a mutant who can defeat an army is like a versatility aircraft; a mutant who can control others is like a pathogen unleashed by a careless lab or a desperate terrorist; a mutant who can walk through walls is like a kid who hacks the school's computer network and changes their grades. Nuclear power, information networks, cloning, weaponry... our evolution has prepared us for none of these things, which are both opportunities or threats. So mutation is a metaphor for "what can arise among humanity that could save us or doom us."

Side effects, or just a plain limitation on it. 

You might want to do the Growth with Costs END only to Activate and then add Reduced END to STR.

Then I recommend GrailKnight's suggestion!
 

Sorry to be late to this thread, but I had to go dig up all my copies of FH to see if I had lost my mind.  Because I love all you guys, but I have no idea what you're talking about: every edition of FH has made significant changes to the weapons chart.
 
Bear in mind that I have played a lot of FH so it's very close to my heart.  There is no more important chart in any fantasy RPG than the weapons table, because fantasy campaigns are almost by definition melee combat campaigns, and many fantasy archetypes are literally defined by what weapon they carry (swordsman, knight, archer, samurai).  Thus even "minor" changes, like, aren't.  Follow me as we trace a handful of weapons through Fantasy Hero history!

FH 1st/3rd:
Pike (Long Spear) Str Min 15, -1 OCV, 2D6K, 2H, Long Boar Spear Str Min 10, -1 OCV, 1.5D6K, 2H, Long Broadsword Str Min 12, +1 OCV, 1D6+1K Francisca Str Min 13, 0 OCV, 1.5D6K Heavy Long Bow Str Min 19, 0 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, -1/4"  
The original FH notably did not have many options for sharp stick: Pike, Boar Spear, and Generic Polearm are your choices.  We also see the beginnings of the FH concept that Every Weapon Type Has A Gimmick, so axes do damage, picks are AP, and (most) swords get +1 OCV (but not you, Bastard Sword, you bastard).

FH 4th:
Pike Str Min 15, -1 OCV, 2d6+1K, 2H, L3, Set Long Spear Str Min 13, -1 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, L3, Set Medium Spear Str Min 10, -1 OCV, 1.5d6K, L, 1.5H, Set Broad Sword Str Min 13, +1 OCV, 1d6+1K Francisca Str Min 13, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Thrown Heavy Long Bow Str Min 17, +1 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, +1 RMod, no horse  
4e FH did the math and revamped the entire weapons chart according to active points and limitations.  It is the most balanced of all the weapons charts, at the expense of granularity (most Str Mins being 10/13/15/18).  
 
Here the Pike splits from the Long Spear, and the Medium Spear is invented (along with a host of identically-statted polearms).  Broadswords gain a space which I guess makes them slightly heavier, and axe technology takes a leap with flingable Franciscas.  The Heavy Long Bow gets a reduction in draw weight, and the Very Heavy Long Bow appears taking the 19 Str Min slot.  Horses are now banned from wielding longbows, presumably because they lack opposable thumbs.

Hero 5th:
Spear, Long Str Min 13, -1 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, L Spear, Medium Str Min 11, -1 OCV, 1.5d6K, 1.5H, L Spear Str Min 10, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Thrown! Sword, Broad Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1d6+1K Axe, Francisca Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Thrown Longbow, Heavy Str Min 15, 0 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, +1 RMod  
5e Hero took the carefully balanced chart from 4e, laughed contemptuously, and stomped it into a gurgling pulp.  Pikes are not present in the abbreviated Big Black Book weapons table.  Long and Medium Spears come through almost unchanged, but look at the shiny new entry for Generic Spear!  The new sharp stick does 2d6+1K at Str 20, with one hand and no OCV penalty, and you can throw it!  Why you wouldn't lop off the back 2-3 feet of Medium and Long Spears in 5e, I'll never know.
The other weapons we're looking at get a little lighter, but the Broadsword loses its OCV bonus and becomes purely inferior to all other weapons (but especially spears).
 
FH 5th:
Pike Str Min 15, -1 OCV, 2d6+1K, L2, 2H, Set Spear, Long Str Min 13, -1 OCV, 2d6K, L2, 2H, Set Spear, Medium Str Min 10, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, L, Set, Thrown Sword, Broad/Long Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1d6+1K Francisca Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Thrown Heavy Long Bow Str Min 15, 0 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, +1 RMod, no horse  
Universal systems aren't: the 5e FH weapons chart is almost the same as the 5e Hero weapons chart, but there are still minor differences here and there.  The Pike returns in this full-length chart, while Spear 2.0 officially becomes Medium Spear and gains Set.  Seriously, Medium Spear is a full DC better than any other weapon in 5e FH.

FH 6th:
Pike Str Min 15, -1 OCV, 2d6+1K, EL, 2H, Set Spear, Long Str Min 14, -1 OCV, 2d6K, EL, 2H, Set Spear, Medium Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Set, Thrown Sword, Broad/Long Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1d6+1K Francisca Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Thrown Longbow, Heavy Str Min 15, 0 OCV, 2d6K, 2H, +1 RMod, no horse  
6e FH sees relatively few changes to the weapons chart, though thankfully someone noticed that sharp sticks were out of line.  

FH Complete:
Pike Str Min 15, -1 OCV, 2d6+1K, EL, 2H, Set Spear Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, Set, Thrown Sword, Broad/Long Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1d6+1K Longbow Str Min 12, 0 OCV, 1.5d6K, 2H, +1 RMod, no horse  
FHC keeps stats the same (as far as I can tell) but does away with half the weapons, so Franciscas and Long Spears are no more, and only the Medium Longbow is kept.  Given short shrift throughout FH history, the Bastard Sword not only has no OCV bonus, it doesn't even have an OCV bonus entry in the table due to one of the egregious typos.  Katanas are added though, so that's something?

I'd do a more thorough analysis but I'm leery of posting too much copyrighted material here and, besides, I'm supposed to be working.  I hope this little post is enough to show that the Fantasy Hero weapons chart has constantly evolved.  In my opinion the 4th ed chart is the best out of all of them, since it penalizes players the least for arming their characters however they want.
 
 

I think I feel the same as the OP, in wanting better guidance with Eurostar because they feel awfully clunky as is. I shared Eurostar's backstory with several European friends (Dutch, French, German, Polish and Spanish) and they were all pretty much of the opinion "These must be the creation of an American, with no understanding at all about Europe except to make insulting stereotypes and give them the thinnest of backgrounds." so I couldn't get them to give me any input on how to flesh them out better.
 
At my table, Eurostar is usually setup more of a dark mirror supervillain team to the player's superheroes. They have all the power that any superhero group could want, but instead of doing good with it they act as a destructive force. Europe is portrayed as a mostly already ordered place with Eurostar as a significant threat on the continent, actually a step below VIPER and counterparts to real world situations like Brexit, the Ukrainian/Russian tensions and the (refugee/"worker") migration from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. (I prefer to fictionalize real-world conflicts a bit, in order to give space to my players to not feel they are getting political discussion pressed on them.) Anyhow, Eurostar is less grim dark terror and more professional thuggery. Interfere in their plans, and they WILL come after you. I have mostly adopted the 6E version of the group, with the exception that I had the 4E version White Flame and Whip killed rather than Bora and the Whip by VIPER and replaced by Scorpia and Feurmacher. I've also expanded the team with three more members: Výrobca - a dieselpunk engineer/magical smith who commands a force of magical constructs/vehicles from Slovakia, Cadavru - a cold war era "zombie" super soldier from Romania, the Extremist (Szélsőséges in Hungarian, and no I don't make anyone try to say it!) - a superboy clone from Hungary who survived on the mean streets of Budapest as a gang member until his powers grew in his later teenage years and he suddenly went on a rampage killing friends, rivals, criminals and law enforcement alike before Fiacho got his (and Mentalla's mind control) claws into him. Eurostar also has a small agent corps, split between infiltrators and a cadre of terrorists/soldiers - somewhat increased in capability and numbers since the end of the Eurostar-VIPER war. In their last use in a campaign, they massacred a governmental team of Turkish supers while conducting attacks across the country before retreating back into Europe causing the Turkish government to collapse and be replaced by an anti-EU military junta and a hardening of the borders. Turkey's sole surviving super, a poor man's Iron Man tried to go after Eurostar himself but got torn in two by the Extremist while flying illegally through Europe.

Well, Conquerors, Killers and Crooks gave three plot seeds for 5e Eurostar. To paraphrase:
 
1. Buy a cloned army from Teleios with which to attempt an outright conquest of a smaller European country. (Or at least one with weak military resources.) Their attempt to conquer Poland failed; this time, maybe Romania.
 
2. Set up an enormous counterfeiting operation and use the funny money to buy up all the assets they can. Then leak the truth to destabilize European economies.
 
3. Steal 8 Russian nukes and threaten to destroy a city a month unless governments surrender to them.
 
One of the plot seeds for Fiacho has him stealing tech to create a bioweapon, because he thinks a plague would make it easier to conquer Europe.
 
Dean Shomshak
 
 

There is an actual Cobra figure called the VIPER. I tend to dislike any depiction that looks too much like this because of the strong association I have:
 
 

Here's another one.  
 
Burned out wizard:  This is someone who knows a lot of spells, but has lost all of their magical ability in some way.  They probably have a lot of knowledge of magic-adjacent subjects: magical theory, magical creatures, spell components... but they can't actually cast.  May have picked up a few combat skills to protect themselves.  Probably acting as a magical teacher, possibly to an apprentice-level PC.  

Code vs Killing almost always is restricted to your own species.  CvK doesn't usually mean can kill NOTHING but it means "cannot kill people".  Superheroes routinely slaughter monstrous aliens without blinking an eye because they're clearly just monsters.