Addiction...

[Jaeger]

OK, here's something to lighten the mood...

Lets say I create a Duellist PC, and lets say that I have to give him a disadvantage.

Here's my idea-

Addiction: Killing people.

 He's addicted to the adrenaline rush of the killing blow. Yeah, that's right baby! Be it a man, woman, infant, child, young, old or retarded, he's gotta knock-off a person a day to stay healthy.

How would you play such a PC?

What would be his life expectancy?

What would your GM say?

How would other established PC's in your group react?

If you were the GM and allowed it how would you handle the PC in game??

Lets have fun with this! But remember, insert tounge in cheek before you pound away on those keys!

This is so wrong, in all the right ways...

[Ingenious]

Yea, lighten the mood indeed.

It was said by a famous ace of world war one.. that if this person did not shoot down an enemy fighter every fifteen minutes, he was not satisfied..
That person was Manfred von Richtofen.. the Red Baron.

Anyways, aside from that historical reference to a quasi-addiction to killing.. perhaps your issue can be somewhat covered by the bloodlust flaw. Or not.

I would play such a character with a grim outlook on life.. an all or nothing attitude. He shouldn't care about his own death, even though being a mass-murderer of sorts would warrant quite alot of attention.
Though he could kill at night, secretly.. in some sort of disguise to cover his ass.. Perhaps his secret identity is found out, what then though? Would he kill to keep himself safe from the authorities? I would think so.

As for how my GM would react to a hypothetical character with these issues, I do not know.
Other established PC's, if they knew at all.. would probably react negatively.. especially the ex-soldier/priest.. he would not take to kindly to someone galavanting around and killing people for pleasure..which this particular character seems attached to.

If I were GM, god forbid anyone having to sit through that, I might say okay.. I'll give you what you want. But that does not include what I would do and how I would handle this character through the plot. I would constantly test him. I'd have alot of people looking for him, not just the authorities and the justice system... but bounty hunters.. the church.. family members of the slain seeking revenge... etc. I would have this character on the brink of destruction at all times.. Whether or not he survives is how the player(you) would react to a given situation and or if you were better than an NPC or two or three that I would occasionally throw at you. Your survival would depend on your wits, your cunning, dumb luck.. etc. not just your skill with a sword..

Other than that, I have no clue..
-Ingenious

[Richard_Strey]

How would you play such a PC?

What would be his life expectancy?

What would your GM say?

How would other established PC's in your group react?

If you were the GM and allowed it how would you handle the PC in game??

Lets have fun with this! But remember, insert tounge in cheek before you pound away on those keys!

This is so wrong, in all the right ways...

I'd play him basically as a burn-out warrior not caring for much else, anymore. He'd be emotionally dead, the adrenaline being the only thing that makes him feel "alive". Then as a contrast throw something in that he truly loves, although he never shows it. Like, his pet cat. This, in my opinion, is *very* difficult to truly play.

His life expectancy would be rather short. Those guys are a true threat to the public and would be dealt with by a horde of city guards or, even better, a few with crossbows.

I AM THE GM! ;) Anyway, if the character was well thought out, I may allow this experiment. However, I see a few problems arising from in-game issues.

The other members of the group would likely not have anything to do with this person. Such a person means trouble, potentially a deadly risk. Nothing you would want to deal with unless absolutely neccessary.

As the GM that I am, it is my job to portray a realistic, living world. I am the computer that this simulation runs on, with certain parameters that both I and the players agreed on. "I" do not have to react at all. My world will. If he manages to survive through sheer luck or skill, then that's that. As long as all are having fun, everything is okay.

[Lance D. Allen]

Pe Ell.

For those of you who have read the Druid of Shannara, no further explanation should be needed. But for those who have not..

Pe Ell was an assassin. It wasn't so much the killing itself that he was addicted to, but the moment of death, seeing the knowledge of their own mortality, and seeing, through some agent possibly magical, or not (I was never purely certain) something else.. a bit of knowledge gleaned from the victim's eyes at the moment of death.

The character would be totally amoral. He kills not necessarily because he enjoys it (though he does) but because it doesn't matter. Everyone else is less than he is, and is therefore worthy only of serving his pleasure. He relents from killing only when it serves his greater purpose, but indulges in it whenever it is possible to do so without disrupting his greater plans. Sometimes the lust for it will overtake him, however, and he will kill regardless of it's effects.. And the fury at himself for destroying his own carefully laid plot would drive him to greater levels of killing.

Life expectancy upon beginning play: variable, based upon how long it takes for the first killing spree.

GMs take: Assuming it be the other GM in my group (who doesn't run TRoS.. I do) he'd probably be very intrigued. He's odd like that.

As for the other players: Between myself and my counter-GM, we make up the strongest core of the playing group. The rest aren't particularly motivated to push the story in their own directions, and as such would probably follow the lead of the strongest player. That isn't to disparage them, but is simply an observation on their roleplaying styles; they're not particularly proactive, but they do contribute their own way.

[Jaeger]

One thing I might want to point out.

If such a PC is secretive about his addiction and takes some percautions their lifespan may be a lot longer than you think....

I have a B.S. in Criminal justice. A really good clearance rate for homicides today is 60%. Yep they "close" only 60% of the deaths they know about. And this is in the day and age of modern police forces, DNA, video, and fingerprinting...

Renissance and medieval law enforcement is almost an oxymoron. City guard? ha, they were there to keep people from rioting. Are you noble born? No? Then who cares if you die. Country areas were on thier own, at most someone was appointed shire reeve (sherriff) and it's not like they ever had any formal training. - the only real advantage that medieval communities had was that everyone knew everyone else and it usually wasn't hard to pinpoint a bad apple in a small community. large cities were a different story though.

There was no such thing as an organized police force as we know it today until robert peel introduced the bobbies in london in the late 1800's.

Historically things would have to get pretty blatant or outrageous for a noble to send the guard after someone. And then only if they knew who they were...

[Ingenious]

You make a point Jaeger, let me counter it with this.
If you were a noble in TROS.. and someone killed say... your daughter, your child, wife.. etc. Would you not go hunting around everywhere for the murderer? Eh? EHHH? I would. Perhaps this character accidentally kills someone who actually is someone else. I.e. they were in hiding, exile.. etc.. and were some really uber-nobility.
Sorcerors are hunted down by mobs.. so why the hell cant a serial-killer be also in your mind's eye eh?!  Perhaps his method of killing is what gives away the fact that these murders are connected? And soon alot of people would be hot on his trail. I'm sure after that, anyone seeing anybody else killing someone with 'method X'.. that they'd be in some deep shit. This produces a very real challenge for the character to role-play.. and a crystal clear threat to his life. Again, the one factor to this is being 'seen'.

-Ingenious

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I have a B.S. in Criminal justice. A really good clearance rate for homicides today is 60%. Yep they "close" only 60% of the deaths they know about. And this is in the day and age of modern police forces, DNA, video, and fingerprinting...

Renissance and medieval law enforcement is almost an oxymoron. City guard? ha, they were there to keep people from rioting. Are you noble born? No? Then who cares if you die. Country areas were on thier own, at most someone was appointed shire reeve (sherriff) and it's not like they ever had any formal training. - the only real advantage that medieval communities had was that everyone knew everyone else and it usually wasn't hard to pinpoint a bad apple in a small community. large cities were a different story though.

There was no such thing as an organized police force as we know it today until robert peel introduced the bobbies in london in the late 1800's.

Historically things would have to get pretty blatant or outrageous for a noble to send the guard after someone. And then only if they knew who they were...

This is as far from historically accurate as anything I've read in a long time.

See Gonthier's tome "Délinquance, justice et société dans le Lyonnais médiéval (fin XIIIe-début XVIe s.)" for a detailed appraisal of the extremely complicated concepts of jurisdiction, law enforcement, and judicial practice in a late-medieval western-European city and county.

The city of Lyon had a population of around 16k post-1348. The secular court had a prévot and 16 sergeants who were responsible for maintaining law within the city. Post-1348 was a time of great change, when people were questioning the moral code laid down by the church due to the churches' lack of capacity to mitigate the effects of the plague. If you were going to get anything resembling the anarchy described above this was the time. Yet Lyon wasn't a city wracked by widespread crime let alone murder.

The main reason is the all-embracing, all-pervasive nature of the church. The parish, even within a city, provided the framework for a tight-knit community. Unlike today, or even after the 16th century, it was a time of great interdependence. Few were self-sufficient; all relied on their neighbours, the members of their parish.

Interestingly, during the great Fairs that were held twice or four times per year in the 15th century, the number of sergeants was doubled to 32 for the two week duration of the Fair.

Cheers,

[Loki]

A great character concept! However, the important question to ask is: how?

Sure, the character may enjoy the power, the cruelty, or even the thrill of hunting someone down and killing them.

But how did they find out that this was so enjoyable? The journey from a human being with empathy to cold-hearted killer is what would make this character interesting to me. And most importantly--is the journey complete?

For instance, if he's the weary soldier whose only thrill in life is the kill... did he start off as a young warrior fighting for glory? A tough sergeant who fought for the men in his unit? Was he disillusioned by war? What happened to all the people and ideals that used to matter to him? Were they all killed? Is he dead inside because he can't bear to face those losses? And is it possible that he's not the hardened cynic he appears to be? Perhaps he's driven by something else... self-hate that he takes out on everyone else?

They say that all cynics are romantics who had their hearts broken--no one else would be so upset that the world isn't fair! Perhaps he is a heartless killer... but there is something that still matters to him, even if he doesn't know it.

Go rent Unforgiven for a great character study of the killer: William Munny. He is a man for whom killing became a way of life, so natural to him that even after giving up the gun for years, his nature--and the nature of his world--pulled him back in.

[Jaeger]

Ian, I was speaking in general terms....

The main contention being that we shold not impose our modern conceptions of law enforcement effectiveness into a reniassance/medieval setting. like TROS.

And I spoke in general terms because medieval/reniassance covers a lot of ground! and not every european city was as good as lyon in supressing crime...

And you retread the reasons many cities/communities in medieval times did have low crime rates: ie. close community/the church etc. which I mentioned in my post.

However when cities get bigger and more anonymous things get worse... both paris and london had some very bad neighborhoods during the reniassance. and thier equivalent of the city guard wasn't very effective.

my main point, which I should have spelled out:
 People have an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of the police when it comes to catching criminals. partly to blame on tv and movies. the law enforcement community is partly to blame itself as they only advertise victories to the public and try to downplay/hide the number of criminals who get away... something which "law enforcement" in general has always done. In real life it's just not that easy. and when you translate that into medieval/reniassance times;  For the most part they were much less effective.  Exceptions (many exceptions) can always be found.

if you really want to argue the overall historical effectiveness of medieval/reniassance criminal justice systems lets take it to email...

ingenious:
I agree with you, I assumed people would be able to figure out the points you made on thier own.
the important point being "were they seen?" and is it enough to get them caught?

Whenever I speak generally or assume I always seem to draw fire... There is a lesson there....

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Ian, I was speaking in general terms...

Really? I'd call it something else.

The main contention being that we shold not impose our modern conceptions of law enforcement effectiveness into a reniassance/medieval setting. like TROS.

Absolutely. Hence the need to rebut your position.

You state, for instance:

I have a B.S. in Criminal justice. A really good clearance rate for homicides today is 60%. Yep they "close" only 60% of the deaths they know about. And this is in the day and age of modern police forces, DNA, video, and fingerprinting...

There are two inferences here. Firstly, as you have a degree on the subject that you are talking from a position of familiarity and authority. There is no other reason to mention it. Secondly, that as a 60% clearance rate for investigated murders is a "really good" result in a society which has access to modern forensics and all the techniques of a modern police force that a medieval society, which had neither of those things, must have had a much lower clearance rate for investigated murders.

The latter appears to me to be a classic example of imposing modern conceptions onto a medieval society.

And I spoke in general terms because medieval/reniassance covers a lot of ground! and not every european city was as good as lyon in supressing crime...

Well, let's look again at what was said:

Renissance and medieval law enforcement is almost an oxymoron.

Lyon is not the exception to the rule it is a worst-case-scenario. Lyon, during the 14th and 15th centuries, goes from being around the tenth or so largest city in France to being the second largest. It's population expands dramatically during this period with immigrants from all over central Europe settling there. Rapid population growth, large migrant section of the population, insufficient infrastructure. In spite of this crime is not prolific.

And you retread the reasons many cities/communities in medieval times did have low crime rates: ie. close community/the church etc. which I mentioned in my post.

Here is what you actually wrote in your original post:

Country areas were on thier own, at most someone was appointed shire reeve (sherriff) and it's not like they ever had any formal training. - the only real advantage that medieval communities had was that everyone knew everyone else and it usually wasn't hard to pinpoint a bad apple in a small community.

So you've made the observation that in a small country village crime is easier to detect and the law easier to enforce because everybody knows each other in a small community. I wouldn't describe what I wrote as a reprise of this statement.

However when cities get bigger and more anonymous things get worse... both paris and london had some very bad neighborhoods during the reniassance. and thier equivalent of the city guard wasn't very effective.

And a source for this analysis would be?

London and Paris are ten times the size of the second-largest cities in their respective countries. They are not typical of anything; they are the exceptions yet even they are not as bad as you describe during the bulk of the period between 1000 and 1600.

Jurisdiction, the right to exercise justice in a designated area, was a commodity that was bought and sold because the owner of those rights received the revenue from the fines imposed by the judge of the court. Therefore, the owner of the jurisdiction had a direct financial incentive to ensure that the law was actively enforced. This situation is true throughout France for the period described.

So when you say "Historically things would have to get pretty blatant or outrageous for a noble to send the guard after someone", what you are saying is simply wrong. There is an entire industry set up around law enforcement during this period, it is very profitable for those that control it, and it is jealously guarded.

Cheers,

[Jaeger]

I can't believe I hijacked my own thread...

If you  really want to get into the where and whys of my position please PM me. If you do I'll respond.