Over in J_Arcane's thread about rpg assumptions that aren't really true, Balbinus brought up the point that most rpgs assume that PCs are ruthless killers. No-one hesitates to pull the trigger.

Now, I think this is simply because most gamers don't want this stuff in their games as rules - maybe as roleplaying guidelines, but not rules. That's because the things people are most often trying to do in rpgs are most like action movies. Most of us don't roleplay to have angst or trauma or to be human or humane, nor simply to kill things and take their stuff, but to be ballsy action heroes. Even a lab rat like those guys in CSI doesn't hesitate when it comes time to pull the trigger. Nor do they express remorse afterwards. So even in a game which was mostly about investigations, we'd not expect our characters to be inhibited in this way.

So far as I know, only four rpgs out of the 1,600+ published address the psychological inhibitions or consequences to killing in any way. There are three basic issues: will to kill, and what it does to you to kill, and how people see you afterwards. To my knowledge, no rpg deals with how people react to you after seeing or knowing you've killed.

d4-d4 gives a "Will to Kill" optional rule at the beginning of the chapter. It's harder to kill a crippled begging child right in front of you than a figure a hundred yards away on a battlefield. Once one kind of killing has been done, it becomes easier; once the character has failed at the will to kill roll, it becomes harder. It's possible to buy traits for your character which make certain kinds of killing harder or easier. Being a Combat Veteran makes killing in combat easier, but killing unarmed nonthreatening people harder. Being a Self-Defence Pacifist makes using lethal force in self-defence easier, but initiating it extremely difficult. d4-d4 mentions that there are psychological consequences to killing, but advises that playing out post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and so on, would not be fun; no rules are given for the consequences, except that it becomes easier or harder to kill each time as a result of those tests.

Again, in d4-d4 it's an optional rule, specifically suggested for realistic games, and excluded from cinematic games. It's not a standard part of the system, and deals with "will to kill" but not "consequences of killing". It does not address how people react to you afterwards.

Conflict, and a person's place in it is a supplement I wrote along with d4-d4 which deals with these things from a GMing and roleplaying perspective, but has no rules.

GURPS offers a Reluctant Killer Disadvantage, which just makes it harder to hit if you can see a human face. So if you're a good shot it doesn't really matter, you can still blow away some crippled begging child right in front of you. If you do kill, you send 3d6 days being "morose and useless", and during this time "must make a Will roll to offer any sort of violence towards anyone for any reason." After that, there are no game mechanics affecting your character. The general tone of it would suggest that you should roleplay out this trait...

It's a Disadvantage for two reasons. The first is that in GURPS, everything which restricts your character's freedom of action is a Disadvantage, whether a positive or negative trait - Honesty, Charitable, Callous, Sadistic, Lecherous, Truthful, etc. The second is that the default play style of GURPS is "action hero" - they don't hesitate or feel remorse. Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard is often praised as an example of a regular guy caught up in big events. But he does not hesitate to kill except to make a witty comment as he kills the guy, he does not have bad dreams or drink too much for years afterwards, and his wife is happy to have sex with him even though she just saw him push someone out a skyscraper window, or shoot them, etc.

GURPS thus offers the option of dealing with Will to Kill in a roundabout way (making it harder to hit the guy, rather than stopping you shooting at all), and if you take that option you'll get some consequences, though those consequences don't reflect the reality. It does not mention others' reactions to your character having killed.

Unknown Armies begins its combat chapter with a rather preachy little half-page on how it's mean and nasty and horrible to kill someone, and you should do anything you can to avoid it. But that half-page of stuff offers no game mechanics to deal with "will to kill" and is followed by many pages of the combat chapter itself, along with 97 different types of guns and ammo. In addition, firearms do shitloads more damage than anything but magic, and the general tone of the text is, "we are all fucked up, ain't it cool?" The Stress Meters (UA's Sanity Points) allow to measure how a character is affected by things, including violence; they can become hardened to it, or more sensitive to it. It's not explicitly said, but a wise GM would have them do a Violence check to deliberately kill someone. They might succeed and take a step towards sociopathy, or fail and take a step towards depression or schizophrenia.

Unknown Armies thus has some roleplaying guidelines and game mechanics for "will to kill", and some unrealistic ones (they admit their process of characters becoming mentally ill is unrealistic) for psychological consequences to it, but their general tone over the whole book is encouraging you to do badarse nasty shit, rather than emphasising the more human side. No rules or mention of others' attitudes to you as a result of your actions are given, excepting that the general tone is "you are fucked up and won't be part of society" - but that applies to UA characters whether they kill anyone or not.

I understand Godlike has some consideration of the psychological aspects of killing in it, but I've not seen it and so can't comment on it.

Again, I don't think all rpgs should have rules for this, it simply doesn't fit in most rpgs' settings - but in many, it's nice to have the optional rules there in case you'd like to use them. Do any other rpgs besides these four explicitly deal with the psychological aspects of killing, either in game mechanics or roleplaying advice?

Are you counting nWoD's morality scale, or do you view that as mostly an afterthought?

Quote from: BrantaiAre you counting nWoD's morality scale, or do you view that as mostly an afterthought?

I don't know about that. Please tell us about it.

Reign attacks the problem with a setting solution -- killing someone who is earnestly begging for mercy or who is helpless means they can haunt you, and being haunted basically ends your character.  It might be made fun to play a haunted character, but generally it will be impossible to interact usefully with others.  So characters can talk up all the badass they want but when the rubber meets the road they must always think twice about "expedient" killing.

Quote from: Kyle AaronGURPS offers a Reluctant Killer Disadvantage, which just makes it harder to hit if you can see a human face.

If you are going to count disads, Hero/Champs has had code versus killing and similar disadvantages for ages.

Not quite the same thing, but Twilight 2000 has a coolness under fire rule.

Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that this sort of thing gets factored  in to chance of hitting. Studies of combat troops show that a lot don't have the strength to shoot other humans. I think that helps explain why some starting hit chances are so low.

Of course, if your game features lots of nonhuman opponents, this theory goes out the window.

IIRC in call of cthulhu there's SAN losses listed for seeing a corpse, etc.  it's not in the rules, but it shouldn't be too tough to use that mechanic for shooting or otherwise trying to kill another human being.  maybe i'll have to address that somehow. . . :raise:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIf you are going to count disads, Hero/Champs has had code versus killing and similar disadvantages for ages.

That's a different thing. A character's personal convictions or philosophy are a different thing to their innate humanity or animal instincts. For example, I may feel it's morally wrong to be unfaithful to my wife, but still be quite capable of doing it if offered the opportunity, or I may see nothing immoral in it, but when it comes to not be able to do it. I do not in principle see anything wrong with stealing from banks, but one day when I passed a counter out of sight of the cameras while a staff member was loading the ATM just near the door with cash and had her back turned, I did not pick up the cash sitting on the counter and pocket it.

A character's principles and practice are different things. In GURPS, for example, you have Duty, and Sense of Duty - one is imposed, the other comes from within. A Duty may be evaded, a Sense of Duty may not.

We're talking about rpgs which offer at least the option of dealing with this innate human thing, the will to kill, and the psychological and social costs of doing so.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadPersonally, I think it's reasonable to assume that this sort of thing gets factored in to chance of hitting. Studies of combat troops show that a lot don't have the strength to shoot other humans. I think that helps explain why some starting hit chances are so low.

That might be the rpg's reasoning, but it would be wrong. Whether you're a good shot or a bad shot is a different thing to whether you're willing to kill. As a chef I'm good with a knife, and know where veins and arteries are; that does not mean I would be able to kill a little old lady.

Physical capacity and mental will (or malicious intent, for criminal killing) are different things. If you want to simulate will to kill or the lack of it, then having everyone begin as bad shots is not the way. Those willing to kill will eventually do so from sheer persistence, whatever their skill level in shooting or stabbing or bashing; those unwilling to kill will not do so, even if they're crack shots.

Quote from: beeberIIRC in call of cthulhu there's SAN losses listed for seeing a corpse, etc. it's not in the rules, but it shouldn't be too tough to use that mechanic for shooting or otherwise trying to kill another human being. maybe i'll have to address that somehow. . .

I thought of Cthulhu when writing this, but it doesn't qualify. Just about any rpg you can take some rules they already have and adapt them to allow for the will and consequences of killing.

I'm asking here not about "what rpgs can we adapt?" but "what rpgs already have rules or roleplaying advice about it?"

The Morality trait in World of Darkness is a scale of 1-10, with 10 being saintly and 1 being psychopathic. The human average (and default PC starting point) is 7. Performing certain "sins" risks a degeneration roll based on the severity of the act to determine whether the character feels remorse (passes the roll) or rationalizes the act (fails the roll) and therefore drops a point on the Morality scale. Below 7, any time a character's Morality goes down, there's a chance of gaining a Derangement, which is not unlike "indefinite insanity" as found in Call of Cthulhu. In that case, the inability to face what he's done wears on the character's psyche.

As a character's Morality drops, that character starts to rationalize more and more severe "sins" (which then no longer trigger Morality rolls), but on the flip-side the character gets fewer dice each time to resist dropping further (and thereby perhaps developing a Derangement). It's sort of a downward spiral once you start to slip. Finally, a character with a Morality of zero is assumed to have become such an irredeemable monster as to be unplayable.

Manslaughter is given as an example of a Morality 4 "sin" (meaning that anyone with Morality 4 or higher would risk a degeneration roll for doing such a deed). Premeditated murder is Morality 3, serial murder is Morality 2, and mass murder is Morality 1 (meaning even the most degenerate PCs can't avoid a Morality roll for that one). Killing in self-defense is a gray area that in many cases might not call for a roll at all. Depends on the character and the situation, I guess.

Generally speaking, it's not entirely unlike Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system, except that the potential for madness comes not from external horrors but rather from one's own choices. It also allows for the possibility of remorse in order to halt the downward spiral for a time, since the loss of Morality is really just an abstract way to represent how people can come to rationalize increasingly horrific actions in order to achieve some important end. The potential for gaining Derangements follows the assumption that such anti-social behavior is fundamentally unhealthy.

As a system, it deals with the after-effects of killing, etc., rather than the inhibitions, except that the GM is supposed to warn a player whenever an action would trigger a Morality roll (sort of like the character's conscience talking). The player is free to disregard the warning, of course.

Okay, so the nWoD Morality system is basically hit points for the mind? It's ablative and a death spiral. Be nasty enough, and eventually you become a sociopath. Interesting that being emotional (having remorse) makes you more sane (that is, keeps your character away from Morality 0 and in play) while rationalisation makes you less sane. So much for the idea that understanding your experiences helps you deal with them and remain a decent person...

Is there anything in the rules to make, or in the roleplaying guidelines to suggest that, a PC with (say) Morality 3 should behave differently to one with (say) Morality 9? Or is it just like hit points - you're either up and doing whatever you please, or down and out of play? Does the Morality system separate other crimes from murder in it? Or does doing lots of shoplifting drop your Morality, too? Is it only freshly vile acts which drop Morality, or can repetitions of old acts do it, too? So that a person who commits twenty manslaughters in a row has higher Morality than one who commits one premeditated murder?

Thus far, it sounds like a game balance mechanic rather than a real "Morality" mechanic. Just as Paradox was brought in to keep mages from using lots of their magical powers, and Humanity brought in to keep vampires from using too much of their powers, and Banality for Changelings, so too with this Morality. "Okay we gave you k3w1 pw0rz but don't use them too much or else." It doesn't sound like they're really addressing the question of will to kill or do nonlethal violence to other human beings, rather that they're trying to pull in bad roleplayers a bit and make up for giving them too much power in the rest of the rules.

It's still sounding as though those three systems (d4-d4, GURPS, and UA) I know of as having game-mechanical support for at least one of will to kill, and personal and social consequences for doing so, are the only ones.

Principia Malefex include extensive rules for psychological trauma and internal struggle based on doing or seeing unpleasant things -- including engaging in socially taboo acts, such as murder or rape (the latter subject has nearly two pages of topical and thoughtful discussion dedicated to it). It also contains an actual system for psychoanalysis, as well as rules for roleplaying a clinical Psychopath or Sociopath (though these are intended primarily for the GM). Such characters, naturally, can kill without guilt (and, thus, don't have to make a roll to take somebody's life). PM isn't your typical game system at all, really.

That sounds interesting, and a google turned up its webpage.

That sounds very interesting jdrakeh, thanks for pointing it out to us, though as it seems to be published only small-scale in Britain, I may never see it. Principia Malefex. Well, Balbinus prompted this thread and is looking for things to buy, perhaps he can buy it and tell us about it!

Quote from: Kyle AaronOkay, so the nWoD Morality system is basically hit points for the mind? It's ablative and a death spiral. Be nasty enough, and eventually you become a sociopath. Interesting that being emotional (having remorse) makes you more sane (that is, keeps your character away from Morality 0 and in play) while rationalisation makes you less sane. So much for the idea that understanding your experiences helps you deal with them and remain a decent person...

Is there anything in the rules to make, or in the roleplaying guidelines to suggest that, a PC with (say) Morality 3 should behave differently to one with (say) Morality 9? Or is it just like hit points - you're either up and doing whatever you please, or down and out of play? Does the Morality system separate other crimes from murder in it? Or does doing lots of shoplifting drop your Morality, too? Is it only freshly vile acts which drop Morality, or can repetitions of old acts do it, too? So that a person who commits twenty manslaughters in a row has higher Morality than one who commits one premeditated murder?

Thus far, it sounds like a game balance mechanic rather than a real "Morality" mechanic. Just as Paradox was brought in to keep mages from using lots of their magical powers, and Humanity brought in to keep vampires from using too much of their powers, and Banality for Changelings, so too with this Morality. "Okay we gave you k3w1 pw0rz but don't use them too much or else." It doesn't sound like they're really addressing the question of will to kill or do nonlethal violence to other human beings, rather that they're trying to pull in bad roleplayers a bit and make up for giving them too much power in the rest of the rules.

It's still sounding as though those three systems (d4-d4, GURPS, and UA) I know of as having game-mechanical support for at least one of will to kill, and personal and social consequences for doing so, are the only ones.

To Jump in if I may:

As your morality drops...you become less rational. You can gain derangements much easier. You can "learn from your mistakes" by spending XP to raise your Morality back up (and losing any derangements you may have gained at that Moral Level).

A sin for a Morality 10 character is "Selfish Thoughts". Keep in mind, having selfish thoughts does not automatically cause you to drop from 10 (neither would mudering someone, a morality 3 "sin") but only offers you the chance.

I reccomend flipping through a WoD book to really understand it. Taking the Morality system out of context with the rest of the game's systems may lead to trouble

QuoteThus far, it sounds like a game balance mechanic rather than a real "Morality" mechanic. Just as Paradox was brought in to keep mages from using lots of their magical powers, and Humanity brought in to keep vampires from using too much of their powers, and Banality for Changelings, so too with this Morality. "Okay we gave you k3w1 pw0rz but don't use them too much or else." It doesn't sound like they're really addressing the question of will to kill or do nonlethal violence to other human beings, rather that they're trying to pull in bad roleplayers a bit and make up for giving them too much power in the rest of the rules.

Paragraphs like this show me you are very, very un-informed or un-experienced with the games you mention.

I was quite experienced with the oWoD systems, but am just getting the nWoD systems second-hand. So I definitely understand the oWoD systems properly, and if I don't understand the nWoD properly it's your fault for not explaining them well.

And if you have to read the whole book to understand the mechanics then it's too complicated and nobody will use it anyway

Quote from: jdrakehPrincipia Malefex include extensive rules for psychological trauma and internal struggle based on doing or seeing unpleasant things -- including engaging in socially taboo acts, such as murder or rape (the latter subject has nearly two pages of topical and thoughtful discussion dedicated to it). It also contains an actual system for psychoanalysis, as well as rules for roleplaying a clinical Psychopath or Sociopath (though these are intended primarily for the GM). Such characters, naturally, can kill without guilt (and, thus, don't have to make a roll to take somebody's life). PM isn't your typical game system at all, really.

Holy craptarts!  Someone else who has heard of PM!?!  Never thought I'd see the day outside of the UK con scene.  As it happens I know (although rarely speak to these days) the guys who publish the game, Alison and Ruari.  Nice people, I used to game with them when I lived in Croydon and helped play test a couple of the PM adventures round there house.

I haven't read the game for ages though (it's currently sitting on my shelf) so couldn't really comment on the rules.  Had some fun times playing it though, but they tended to be short adventures for (as I said) play test purposes, so I don't know how well it would hold up for a campaign.

They were working on a new edition for awhile although I don't know if they gave that up.  I know that they had some major computer problems at one point that set them back but haven't heard anything for ages.

2300AD has a coolness under fire stat. This is equal to 1d6 plus the careers in the military but in can also be increased by experience checks. To act in a firefight you have to roll under this stat on a d10.

For some characters this could easily mean hardly ever shooting anyone. It is more of a wargame rule though, rather than something that looks in any detail at the psychology of the thing.