Code vs. Killing

[DeathSheep]

Okay I have had an interesting situation arise and I'm honestly a little stumped. My players had a situation arise where the main villain they were fighting was losing and knew it. He unleashed an area attack on a group of normals with the belief that the group would stop to help the dying civilians rather than try to capture him. Most of the team has Code vs. Killing. The group as a whole ignored the civilians to take down the villain, explaining that stopping to save the innocents would allow him to escape and cause far more deaths. Now, my take on Code vs. Killing has always been different inasmuch as I thought a Common, Total (20 point) version meant "I will not kill, or through inaction allow someone to be killed." Since then I've been looking through the rules and all the examples *seem* to indicate that the group was right...Code vs. Killing in any form means "I won't kill, and I won't allow others to kill." But as far as I can see it does not encompass "I will not allow people to die through inaction".

 

Is this correct?

[Hyper-Man]

I think a lot depends upon the tone of the campaign universe. The player's actions in this case seem very Iron Age.

 

If it was not intended to be an Iron Age toned game I would argue that most champions game settings assume characters will NOT directly kill regardless of any CvK. Having a CvK should make zero loss of life be the primary goal at ALL times whether by direct action or innaction. It's a mindset that doesn't allow the PC to think long term the way they appeared to argue.

[GhostDancer]

Ha! I suggest treating this case-by-case. "I will not allow people to die through inaction" can be taken very broadly, and if done so, would drive you to madness, i.e. deaths to natural disasters, disease, hunger, etc. Even "I will no allow people to be murdered through inaction" is very broad, given that we can't be everywhere at once.

 

I feel that the players were wrong this time. A peace officer or emergency medical technician or such would be required to help the civilians.

 

I recommend weeping relatives and hostile broadcasters on various media. "Heartless, blood-thirsty vigilantes allowed innocent men, women and children to die in the street, pursuing a vicious assailant...more at eleven." If it was Captain Code vs. Killing's mom who was bleeding out, would he have then taken a moment to bind her wound? We all had a mom.

 

Of course, if there were no record...mind you, many places have external security cameras, and someone could make a dying cell phone call. "I love...."

 

[bigbywolfe]

This sounds less like an issue of what the Complication "should" be, and more an issue of game tone and player attitude/expectations. Is this a 4-color game? Players are pretty much wrong as they are ignoring the tone and tropes of the genre. Is this a gritty Iron Age game? Then why does every single player have a CvK?

[Greywind]

Also a matter of the characters themselves. What the characters feel. What they believe. Not necessarily the players.

[phydaux]

FWIW most of my toons who have CvK and aren't specfically Silver Age throwbacks buy the 15 point version, allowing them to kill Joker rather than have him get away only to blow up a short bus full of retarted children tomorrow.

[ghost-angel]

however you argue the technicality - not a single PC stopping to help a civilian as "My teammate got this..." kind of thinking is flat out cold hearted. It is pretty much the opposite of Heroic in my book. I can understand if one PC says "I'll save the citizen, you guys stop the madman!" and the group splitting up tactically, but if the group - to the last one of them - ignores the dying civilian in favor of the escaping villain? They may be "technically" within the guidelines of CvK, but they're certainly not within the intent of it.

[Beast]

CvK is not the 3 laws of robotics

Characters who have healing powers or a real paramedics roll should go for saving the normals

But if all the characters go to heal/paramedic the victims,what is to stop the villain from doing a freebie shot on 1 of the characters doing a braced haymaker

 

In general the police will secure an area BEFORE letting medics in to it so as to not have more victims

When the villain gets away doing this once, why not anytime when things go south or just to give the heroes something to do while the villains agents just blast away at the 1/2 dcv heroes giving first aid

[Clonus]

In terms of lifesaving, taking down the guy who just firebombed a crowd probably does more than rushing over to give first aid to one of the victims...so no. What he should have done was set a building on fire or damage a load bearing wall so someone would actually need rescuing.

[Lucius]

 

Emphasis added:

 

[

QUOTE=DeathSheep;n3581739]Since then I've been looking through the rules and all the examples *seem* to indicate that the group was right...Code vs. Killing in any form means "I won't kill' date=' and [b']I won't allow others to kill[/b]." But as far as I can see it does not encompass "I will not allow people to die through inaction". Is this correct?

 

 

 

 

 

That's basically what your player characters were doing – not allowing someone to kill. Rescuing the victims would ALSO be a valid interpretation of the Psychological Complication, especially for characters with healing abilities or medical training, but they were not in violation of the Complication by what they did. They WERE acting to save lives, by stopping someone who had demonstrated both an ability and a willingness to destroy lives.

 

 

 

 

 

If it bothers you that they aren't living up to your vision of what “four color true blue heroes” would do, in my opinion you already forfeited your right to complain about that. Remember this?

 

 

 

 

 

the main villain ... unleashed an area attack on a group of normals with the belief that the group would stop to help the dying civilians rather than try to capture him.

 

 

 

 

 

If this is what your villains are like, what kind of response do you expect?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks that a character's Code often needs de-coding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[psyber624]

Personally I would argue that they were wrong. In that situation they are ignoring a DEFINITE loss of life to prevent a POTENTIAL one, and even the Batman "Willing to kill Joker to prevent him from killing more" argument doesn't apply when there is someone dying/in life threatening danger RIGHT NOW!. The immediate threat/situation takes precedence. Especially if they are in a situation where they could reasonably have been assured of saving the lives of the current victims, ignoring them to save "potential victims" makes them almost as guilty as the villain for the innocent deaths.

 

And yes, policemen will not put someone or allow someone to subject themselves to IMMEDIATE risk (rushing into a firefight to tend to someone wounded) to protect someone who is down, but they also will not abandon an injured person to persue a suspect either. If it is unsure whether the perpetrator is fleeing or waiting for ambush it gets a lot muddier, but if the choice is between persue or rescue anyone who DOESN'T resuce will likely find themselves in serious trouble.

 

Of course as pointed out before the appropriate response in a team situation is usually to divide up, with enough staying behind to reasonably render aid and the rest leaving in pursuit if they can be reasonably confident of sucess in their pursuit with the reduced manpower.

[Lucius]

 

The original question was "Were these characters behaving in accord with the Psychological Complication or in violation of it?"

 

Legal duty is a separate question, as is moral obligation, and social consequences and ramifications of their decision, and for that matter, the possible psychological aftermath the character may have to deal with.

 

Then again, "what kind of game (setting tone, etc) I want to run" is also a separate question and I decided to address that in my previous post.

 

Oddly enough, I'm reminded of a time I surprised the other players and the person running the game because my character DID stop to rescue a bystander in preference to pursuing a villain; to me it just seemed the natural and obvious thing to do for that particular character.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if that guy will ever run a game again....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[assault]

While it depends on the flavour of the campaign, in general I'd say that the PCs did it wrong. They might have been able to send someone to follow the bad buy, or better yet put a tracer on him, but ignoring injured people is right out.

 

I rarely design characters with CvK these days, but use Code of the Hero instead. The result is the same in this context.

[death tribble]

I am with Assault on this. A real hero does not behave in this way. You would at least try to stop the attack, divert it or take it yourself.

[Clonus]

Of course there are a lot of missing details. Did they chase after the villain for an extended period or did they just continue to fight?