Yeah, "lose all your XP if you kill someone or by inaction allow someone to die" tends to make for some life-loving PCs.

One thing that isn't being addressed in this discussion is the 'cultural values' of the characters. From our 'Western Civilization' all the points being raised about the 'difficulty' of killing would be more or less true.  Debatably true for given subcultures.

But if this was a universal truth of Humanity throughout the ages, then why the fuck do we have war?

To make clear my point: In the tribal Arabic cultures of the middle East, NOT killing a member of a rival tribe for revenge of some slight would be more difficult than killing them, psychologically.  I'll give you that killing immedete family would presumably still provide all the challenges and troubles you suggest.

Which leads me to the 'dehumanization process', a facet of military training that has fallen by the wayside recently. It isn't to  make your would be killers 'inhuman' but to teach them that the enemy is inhuman, thus make them killable.  From our perspective, developing a mindset that 'the enemy' isn't really human (they're just orcs/gooks/towel-heads) is 'evil' or disreputable, it is a perfectly valid, and effective means of developing the 'will to kill'... along with being a good psychological buffer to guilt and remorse over the deed.  Humans can be remarkable brutal when they want to.

Quote from: SpikeFrom our 'Western Civilization' all the points being raised about the 'difficulty' of killing would be more or less true.  Debatably true for given subcultures.

But if this was a universal truth of Humanity throughout the ages, then why the fuck do we have war?

No, it's a universal element of humans. We still have war for two reasons. The first is that wars, whether between a couple of tribes of fifty or so Stone Age people, or a couple of global alliances, are decided and planned by people who won't have to fight them. Whether King Bob or President Jim are personally willing to put a bullet in someone is irrelevant to whether the war is fought. The second is that you don't actually need very many people to be willing to kill to have an effective fighting unit.

The observation of unit commanders from ancient China to modern day West is that in any company of a hundred or so soldiers, about four or five guys do most of the actual fighting. The other guys fire in the air to intimidate, reload for the other guys, follow along doing nothing much, and so on.

It's got nothing to do with our cultural values. It's about a innate human aversion to killing. This aversion is stronger with the intimacy of the violence (strangling is harder than knifing which is harder than shooting which is harder than artillery) and with the perceived humanity of the other person (it's harder if you know the person and harder if you can see their face). Cultural values can vary collective actions, but not individual actions.

It doesn't actually take very many men to be fighting for you to get a war happening.

Military training to increase the rate of men who kill consists of two methods: conditioning, and brutalisation. Conditioning is "go to firing range, target pops up, fire, target falls down, target pops up, fire, target falls down." Then go to the battlefield, target pops up, fire, target falls down - your conditioned response kicks in before your innate human inhibition can stop you. Brutalisation is shave their heads, abuse them, "we are tough! We kill! Hoo-haa! You have no name, soldier, you are only a number! Those dirty foreigners must be destroyed!" etc. Every army uses elements of both brutalisation and conditioning, but most choose to focus on one or the other.

Conditioning bypasses the inhibition against killing, while brutalisation lowers the inhibition. This is why armies which practice brutalisation methods have more atrocities perpertrated by them; they've generally lowered their inhibitions against violence. So for example in WWII both the Germans and the Soviets practiced brutalisation as a training method, and both armies committed many atrocities.

Both methods raise the "willing to kill" rate amongst soldiers, and these are the reasons that First World armies regularly defeat in open battle Third World armies.

For example when 120 or so US Rangers were confronted by 1,500 Somalis and were able to hold them off, apart from the helicopter gunship support, the reason they could do so was that only 150 or so of the untrained Somalis would have been firing directly at them - and many of those 150 physically couldn't get to the immediate vicinity of the Rangers, because all these other non-firing Somalis were in their way. Whereas almost all 120 Rangers were willing to kill, and fired.

If it were a matter of "cultural values" determining whether or not people fired to kill, then I think we have to say that Somalis value human life somewhat less than do Americans, given their country's recent history. But we did not find that 1,500 Somalis killed 120 Rangers. The only conclusion is that the Somalis weren't shooting straight, most of them, or not shooting at all. So much for "cultural values".

Humans have a natural inhibition against killing. This must be bypassed or diminished for them to be able to kill. There are exceptions to this, but they're not what you might think. For example, we imagine that the big dumb farmboy, having gutted pigs and being dumb, would be more willing to kill than the middle-classed university-educated kid. We imagine that the kid from the rough working-class background, used to fights on the street, will be more willing to kill than some rich kid who never even got spanked by his parents. But in fact that's not so. The higher the intelligence and education and social class, the more willing they are to kill. The reasons for this are subject to much speculation, but those are the facts.

It's a complex issue, and doesn't match our preconceptions about culture, education and so on.

QuoteHumans have a natural inhibition against killing. This must be bypassed or diminished for them to be able to kill. There are exceptions to this, but they're not what you might think. For example, we imagine that the big dumb farmboy, having gutted pigs and being dumb, would be more willing to kill than the middle-classed university-educated kid. We imagine that the kid from the rough working-class background, used to fights on the street, will be more willing to kill than some rich kid who never even got spanked by his parents. But in fact that's not so. The higher the intelligence and education and social class, the more willing they are to kill. The reasons for this are subject to much speculation, but those are the facts.

To hazard a theory, I think it's a matter of the higher up on the social ladder you are, the more accustomed you are to view other human beings, especially those beneath your rung of the ladder, as tools, means to an end, or just plain cattle.  

It's one of the driving forces of corporate culture and it's abuse of the rest of mankind.  It's also what lets a leader send off thousands of men to die in a war, or work them to death in a camp, or poison their lands and food to make a buck.  

We are tools, not people.

One thing I've noticed... The StarCluster system is designed to knock people down, stun them, or make them pass out in combat before they die. My players, at least, won't kill them when they're helpless like that. Unless it's very personal, I mean.

-clash

Quote from: J ArcaneTo hazard a theory, I think it's a matter of the higher up on the social ladder you are, the more accustomed you are to view other human beings, especially those beneath your rung of the ladder, as tools, means to an end, or just plain cattle.  

It's one of the driving forces of corporate culture and it's abuse of the rest of mankind.  It's also what lets a leader send off thousands of men to die in a war, or work them to death in a camp, or poison their lands and food to make a buck.  

We are tools, not people.

 Cynical much?


 In some of my past games (almost 10 years ago) players would get into a full-blown debate about cold blooded killing an enemy or just subduing them. One game session there was quite a heated debate about whether to toss a prisoner out an airlock or not. As the Reff I declared that their characters actually had that argument - because it WAS pretty close to their characters thought.

 When I saw that "Secret Tribunal" of Battlestar Galactica last year  I just thought been there, done that story as a GM 10 years ago.

- Ed C.

I should point out that war is not the only example of human brutality... just the only example of human brutality en masse.

Individual humans kill other individual humans voluntarily in acts of hate and anger. These folks haven't been conditioned or brutalized, and actually tend to prefer what are above described as "harder." Knowing the victim. Seeing the face. Strangling/knifing/axing.

And people do these things for all kinds of reasons. Anger is a prime candidate for otherwise normal folks. Others are just fucked up and might even enjoy that kind of shit. I'm sure there are those criminals for whom killing is routine enough as well. Not sure where that falls on the scale of being trained to have "will to kill."

Human inhibitions are not as foolproof as anyone would like to believe.
Edit: I should add that such inhibitions may or may not be inherent. What I mean to get across is more along the lines of that even the untrained have their buttons that can be pushed.

Quote from: flyingmiceOne thing I've noticed... The StarCluster system is designed to knock people down, stun them, or make them pass out in combat before they die. My players, at least, won't kill them when they're helpless like that. Unless it's very personal, I mean.

I've always favoured game systems like that. For myself, my favourite setting is postapocalyptic, but for the sort of play I like to GM, it's more medieval or ancient. Using GURPS, a firearm has a fair chance of killing someone outright, or of inflicting a wound which will kill them before decent medical care can be found. With swords and clubs and such, the guy cops a major wound, falls over, and then you have to decide whether to finish him off, or leave him to bleed to death.

I designed d4-d4 in about the same way. You're unlikely to die instantly in a combat - you fall over knocked out or bleeding.

And when I GM, I have the enemy be sane. They give up, ask for quarter, they don't stab the PCs when they're down, and so on. I actually made a sub-plot about will to kill, once. The PCs defeated a foe and left him there. He survived, but his culture's values were that if defeated and allowed to live, then your enemy is showing utter contempt for you - "You're so harmless and wimpy I can leave you to live." Cast out from his clan and scorned by his family, he sought revenge - he had to kill or be killed. In the end they imposed their culture on him, defeating him again and this time enslaving him. But that was their choice.

I like players to have choices.

Quote from: beejazzI should point out that war is not the only example of human brutality... just the only example of human brutality en masse.

Individual humans kill other individual humans voluntarily in acts of hate and anger. These folks haven't been conditioned or brutalized, and actually tend to prefer what are above described as "harder." Knowing the victim. Seeing the face. Strangling/knifing/axing.

That's very true. And indeed, most murder victims were close to the killer. An overview of Aussie crime stats is available here. About 60% of murders happen at home, 64% of victims were male, over 75% of those killed knew their killer (8% of male and 59% of female victims were killed by a spouse). But for assaults, about 50% of male assault victims and less than 20% of female victims were assaulted by a stranger. Women were more likely to be assaulted at home, and men more likely to be assaulted outside the home.

Interestingly, while the number of murders and manslaughters remained steady (about 310 annually), the number of assaults is rising, currently about 15,000 a month or 180,000 a year; a large part of this is an increase in reporting, but it's not all of it. Australian society is becoming more violent, but that violence is not leading to more deaths.

Now that's the interesting thing. If there were no inhibitions against killing, we'd expect that somewhat more than 310/180,000 violent confrontations would lead to a death. We'd expect that more assaults would lead to more murders and manslaughters, too. Sure, just because you're pissed off enough with someone to raise your hand to them doesn't mean you're pissed off enough to want them dead - but surely more than 1 in 600 times? Someone's holding back.

So while it's true that plenty of untrained people get angry and kill, that's really the exception. Much more common is that a few blows are struck and then someone backs off. It's also a fact that a lot of murderers are caught simply because the cops come in and see them kneeling over the body of their victim saying, "oh my God, what have I done?"

I don't know if I should be impressed or creeped out by those figures, Kyle.

In any case, assuming rage as a motive for murder, we can debate endlessly what was intended. But considering these are things people wouldn't do when not enraged, I have a feeling that we're dealing more with an impulse and less with an actual intention.

That said, both the guilt and horror after the fact and the failure to kill (I think) might just be attributed to ineptitude from moments spent not thinking clearly. A kid hits a bully in the head with a metal bat, not quite grasping the lethality of that action. Alternately, someone knocks a person unconscious and mistakes them for dead... or perhaps the act of knocking someone out jarred some sense back into the agressor. How angry can you be at a limp body, exactly? The impulse itself might not be "kill" to begin with. It may just be "kick it till it stops screaming" at which point lethality is just a secondary circumstance.

As this translates into RPGs, if you are going to have a "will to kill" rule, I just think it would be wise to provide for circumstancial loopholes. Rare perhaps, but necessarily present. A PC kills an NPC and the NPC's brother/sister is in the room? You're gonna have that second NPC go apeshit.

this conversation has gotten rather interesting!

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe higher the intelligence and education and social class, the more willing they are to kill. The reasons for this are subject to much speculation, but those are the facts.

could you link to support this?  or cite sources pls?

Quote from: beebercould you link to support this?  or cite sources pls?

I'm speaking of soldiers in battle; I don't know about murderers doing this.

See the book On Killing by David Grossman. He has a website enticingly entitled "killology".

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm speaking of soldiers in battle; I don't know about murderers doing this.

See the book On Killing by David Grossman. He has a website enticingly entitled "killology".

sweet, thanks

I rarely do this but....

Quote from: Kyle AaronNo, it's a universal element of humans.

Semantic difference for the sake of disagreeing.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe observation of unit commanders from ancient China to modern day West is that in any company of a hundred or so soldiers, about four or five guys do most of the actual fighting. The other guys fire in the air to intimidate, reload for the other guys, follow along doing nothing much, and so on.

Statistics from WWII show that the actual number of shooter/non-shooters is much closer to 1 in 3, not 1 in 25.  I can't speak much about statistics for ancient China mind you, but that is the culture that gave us the crack suicide front line as an intimidation tactic.  I would also suggest that the french causualty rate at Agincour suggests that more 120 or so English did the killing, simply due to fatigue rates.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's got nothing to do with our cultural values. It's about a innate human aversion to killing. This aversion is stronger with the intimacy of the violence (strangling is harder than knifing which is harder than shooting which is harder than artillery) and with the perceived humanity of the other person (it's harder if you know the person and harder if you can see their face). Cultural values can vary collective actions, but not individual actions.

It has everything to do with cultural values. The intimacy of the action may influence the how (though I suggest not as much as you suggest. Benoit strangled his son according to reports). You are mixing two seperate arguements here. I'm not saying that artillerymen don't have it easier than riflemen. That's a given.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt doesn't actually take very many men to be fighting for you to get a war happening.

I'll take this back up to your 'the guys ordering aren't fighting...  comment from earlier. In smaller tribal organizations, in all likelihood, they are.  You know the cliche 'hotheaded warrior convinces his people to fight over stupid shit'.  Cliches don't spring into being from a vacuum.  In fact, in smaller groups a much greater percentage of the population IS going to be directly involved with the fighting.  In American history, many of the famous 'war cheifs' of the Native tribes were very much 'lead from the front' types.  The ability of politicians and generals to hang out in whole other countries from teh battlefield is a very recent innovation in many ways.  Where was Ceaser while his troops were in Gaul? Why, in Gaul of course.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMilitary training to increase the rate of men who kill consists of two methods: conditioning, and brutalisation. Conditioning is "go to firing range, target pops up, fire, target falls down, target pops up, fire, target falls down." Then go to the battlefield, target pops up, fire, target falls down - your conditioned response kicks in before your innate human inhibition can stop you. Brutalisation is shave their heads, abuse them, "we are tough! We kill! Hoo-haa! You have no name, soldier, you are only a number! Those dirty foreigners must be destroyed!" etc. Every army uses elements of both brutalisation and conditioning, but most choose to focus on one or the other.

Conditioning bypasses the inhibition against killing, while brutalisation lowers the inhibition. This is why armies which practice brutalisation methods have more atrocities perpertrated by them; they've generally lowered their inhibitions against violence. So for example in WWII both the Germans and the Soviets practiced brutalisation as a training method, and both armies committed many atrocities.

No disagreement, though why you felt like expanding upon my much shorter comment I'm not entirely certain.  On the other hand, your depiction of 'brutalization' mixes things upa bit. The shaved head and 'no name' bullshit has more to do with breaking down resistance to group-think. Individuality is not a virtue in a soldier.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBoth methods raise the "willing to kill" rate amongst soldiers, and these are the reasons that First World armies regularly defeat in open battle Third World armies.

Sounds good, but I think you are spewing bullshit here. There are a number of reasons why First world armies beat third world armies on the battlefield. Willingness to kill is NOT one of them.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronFor example when 120 or so US Rangers were confronted by 1,500 Somalis and were able to hold them off, apart from the helicopter gunship support, the reason they could do so was that only 150 or so of the untrained Somalis would have been firing directly at them - and many of those 150 physically couldn't get to the immediate vicinity of the Rangers, because all these other non-firing Somalis were in their way. Whereas almost all 120 Rangers were willing to kill, and fired.

If it were a matter of "cultural values" determining whether or not people fired to kill, then I think we have to say that Somalis value human life somewhat less than do Americans, given their country's recent history. But we did not find that 1,500 Somalis killed 120 Rangers. The only conclusion is that the Somalis weren't shooting straight, most of them, or not shooting at all. So much for "cultural values".

Your prejudices are showing through.  even given your numbers (1:25 ratio) there were so many more Somali's in Mogadishu that it isn't even funny.  Causualties among somalis came from superior air support, and superior fire discipline (what we call accuracy and tactics). Mobbing in the streets is a damned ineffective way to fight trained soldiers.  But you'd be more cognizant of that if it hadn't been American Soldiers I'm willing to bet.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHumans have a natural inhibition against killing. This must be bypassed or diminished for them to be able to kill. There are exceptions to this, but they're not what you might think. For example, we imagine that the big dumb farmboy, having gutted pigs and being dumb, would be more willing to kill than the middle-classed university-educated kid. We imagine that the kid from the rough working-class background, used to fights on the street, will be more willing to kill than some rich kid who never even got spanked by his parents. But in fact that's not so. The higher the intelligence and education and social class, the more willing they are to kill. The reasons for this are subject to much speculation, but those are the facts.

Well, I know that terrorists are more prevelant among college educated youths than inner city slums, so there is some truthful sounding parts to this, but now you are merely comparing Western Culture subcultures as 'proof' that the specific culture impacts outlook on killing.  More, you continue to assert that humans have a natural inhibition, like its a supportable fact.   The truth is, children are fairly selfish and amoral until someone teaches them better, that person imparts their cultural values in a process known, creatively enough, as 'Enculturation'. Inhibitions against killing are imparted then.  Its notable that most serial killers, sociopaths and psychopaths have vastly sub-par upbringings, suggesting that enculturation is incomplete.  Simply put, they didn't learn that killing was wrong when the rest of us did.  Gross oversimplification, I know, but it serves to losely illustrate my point.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's a complex issue, and doesn't match our preconceptions about culture, education and so on.

I agree it is complex, however I suspect it is YOUR preconceptions that don't match up.

And damn you for making me cut your post up to respond. Damn you to heck! :haw:

Spike is just confused - he thinks you are talking about Pikas, who electrocute and eat each other's smoking corpses daily, the vicious brutes!

-clahs