Given that re-phrasing, I'll agree, in the context of the game, reality, and fiction.
> And again - you *can* stop short of killing once a
> person is defeated, but
> you don't *have* to. it's like how most injuries and
> death on the ancient
> battlefield were inflicted after one side "lost" -
> they happened during the
> rout after the collapse of one side's battle-line,
> not during the main melee.
Or due to people dying of their injuries some time later.
> I agree with Robin that the heroic stories don't
> usually show the hero
> callously killing their defeated opponents, but on
> the other hand we've hand
> 30 years of D&D and other RPGS, and 20 or so years
> of computer games where
> that is *exactly* what has happened, and players are
> attuned/desensitized to the death of paper
opponents.
Hmm... I'd hope that roleplaying via HQ feels a bit more "real" than clicking a button to delete some personality-free pixels. But on the other side, people don't always want to play "heroes" (yet another reason why using that word when you mean "PC" is bad.)
>if the player wants to make sure his
> hero's enemies are dead,
> he'll kill them unless the rules absolutely forbid
> it - and then we'd hear
> screams of "Railroading" or similar.
Agreed. GM points out in-game consequences, player decides. And the in-game consequences will vary, too. Mercy may be seen as a good thing if a bunch of CA healers are watching. But if you're in a Char-Un game? A simple clean kill shows you're too soft.
Powered by hypermail