Karma Koma Kwestion

Ok, OK, maybe I've been listening to too much Massive Attack, but an intresting question has been posed to my by one of my gaming wards. (And I'd like to see your input)

Here's the question: What is the Karma detriment if a hero steals money that was illegally obtained by a villian? For example: Heroes blow open a safe from Nicky the Fish and find thousands of dollars in laundered currency. Since the heros have no way to give the money back to those it might have come from, would they get a Karma bonus/subtration if they keep the money?

I know that under ideal conditions, a hero should give it to orphans, but some of our heros need to eat and aren't rich.

What do you think?



Well believe me, I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid . . . and I went ahead anyway.

Hi Meltdown,

Laundered money is an interesting dilema. I would assign a charcter a very small (about 10 to 50 depending on the game) karma hit as karma is suppose to represent almost exactly what the name calls it; karma.

The whole idea here is self image and self belief, filtered through the lens of societal view or full societal POV. The ideal, is that no matter how much you want or need that cash, the very fact that you are even wondering whether or not there would be a karma loss ( an ethical tansgression) menas that you know the answer already.

There is a reason that the ideal would be to give it too the orphans... they need it more than you. For you it might allow some extra breathing room. For hem it means they don't starve, or that they have a chance to approach even the bottom end of a normal life style.

Conversely, if the group does turn that money over to the local orphanage, I would ABSOLUTELY karma reward them as thouh they had donated the money from thier own pockets; and if they are a low resource bunch, I'd throw in a bit extra. Benefitted self view. This is another reason that ANY time a hero kills another person, or allows it by inaction, NO MATTER WHAT the situation, I empty their karma pools utterly. Annihilated self view.


Gerrod



If electricity comes from electrons; does that mean that morality comes from morons? G. Carlin

In the book it even states that if you keep the Lobotimizer's Nueron Ray Gun after you stop his evil plot to make everyone shop at Wal-Mart you lose Karma. It's been stated many, many times before but it still holds true- It ain't easy being a hero. If it was I would be running around in my tights proclaiming myself "Captain Shouldn't Be Wearing Tights". ("it's a bird", "no it's a plane", "no it's a bowl of jello in tights?")

I have had many a group that would say to heck with the Karma we need the cashish. I think problems like this are one of the things that keep the game real. Life isn't black and white either, we all do things everyday that walk the line without even thinking about it. I'm sorry but if it was real life the orphans would have to find the funding someplace else. Which is why, until my mutant power surfaces anyway, the tights stay in the closet and I remain Captan Common. Hehe.

DG :bounce:

They have broken the law. The way you the GJ deals with it depends upon the world you are running. As for the way I would judge it, if they keep the money then they lose karma, I don't know how much ... it's late and I can't think it through right now. I would not have them lose all karma, however.

BUT...eventually at a time most inconvienent for the PCs a reporter or crimimal investigator who had been conducting an investigation about the missing $ would uncover the crime and expose the PCs. Popularity would immediatley drop to zero and they would then be in a world of doo-doo. Would they resist arrest? And if so , then what HONEST superhero team do I the Game Judge send against them to bring them to justice?

Meltdown, I love your question. My botom line to you is this...let them think for a while that they have got away with it, then test them and see just what kind of roleplayers they can really be when they have to hire lawyers and stand before a court judge.

Secret (Truth and Justice) Defender

Again, I may be the voice of dissent here.

Like murder, I think theft (and its subsequent Karmic penalties) have more to do with the character's world view. Though Karma may be a cosmic cause-and-effect, Karma also represents the character's conscience.

Anti-heroes like the Punisher, Azrael or even Deadpool would have no moral qualms about using money they found on dead gangsters to buy more bullets, since in their mind it furthers the cause and lets them stop more bad guys. Thief/hero characters like Catwoman are notorious for stealing from the bad guys, and since its depriving a villain of livelihood (and ill-gotten gains), it is indirectly fighting crime.

Generally, I think you guys are right--if Captain America or Thor took blood money, I'd obviously tack on Karmic penalties. With that said, I think it's important to take into account the type of character you have on yr hands.

I ran a game of refugee mutants from Sinister's Orphanage a while back, and these characters had to steal in some cases to survive. Some of the characters, particularly those from more whitebread backgrounds, definitely had a problem with stealing, and so they lost small amounts of Karma, but only if they didn't voice objections in character to what they were doing. In short, if they didn't keep true to their character, they lost Karma. Others in that group came from backgrounds where stealing was part and parcel with survival, and so I didn't think it 'real' to penalize them.

With Karma anyhow...like another post states, there are 'real-life' complications to theft: law enforcement and gangsters seeking revenge (and their money back) are two that immediately spring to mind, but they perhaps serve as examples of what you can bring to bear on characters who steal indiscriminately.

But this brings up a vital point: worrying solely about Karma tends to lessen the roleplaying experience, and though the rules-Nazis may disagree, i think the less you focus on numbers, dice and mechanics, the better role-playing actually happens.

The karma question is a conscience thing. But this IS directly the reason why guys like the Punisher, Deadpool, et al, seem to never have any karma on hand.

They DO have consciences, which they simply choose to ignore... thereby gaining the benefit of freedom of action. It is grotesquely unfair to give them BOTH the complete freedom of action they enjoy AND not to assign karma penalties for actions that are, pure and simple, anti-heroic.

Each individual GJ has to be his own judge... in several senses of the word, when it comes to this topic; nor do I say that any one style is absolutely right or even ansolutely superior to the other.... BUT, in a game based on Super HEROISM, not to assign karma penalties for actively non-heroic actions is, IMO, completely missing the point.


Gerrod



If electricity comes from electrons; does that mean that morality comes from morons? G. Carlin

The way that I award Karma is to make notes through out the game and award it at the end of the session. For situations eg change of scene. The Players gain their karma allowance directly withoutdelay. This is separate from the award that I give the players.

In this situation I would deduct karma from the total that I have so as to not affect the way they play their characters. I would then make note of the Infringement and have it as a plot device for later. As mentioned villian wanting revenge. Journalist on the money trail. Tax collector or what have you.

What was done with the $$$'s depends on what course of action I take down the track. But I would not make any objections to what ever they did with the $$$'s. I would use it as a game Hook.

I see it as the players helping me write the game story by giving me an action to react (create/write) to.



Fangs
>>| |-- ::!o --||<<
"Yes it the Game has bugs"
"I like mine squished"
"Bon Appetite!"

First, I'd like to say the following is solely my own opinion, and though it's not meant to offend anyone, I'm sure it will. With that said, I'm not really apologizing, but warning those who may be offended that this is my view on the subject.

<The karma question is a conscience thing. But this IS directly the reason why guys like the Punisher, Deadpool, et al, seem to never have any karma on hand. They DO have consciences, which they simply choose to ignore...
>

The Punisher, et al, DO have Karma, and often scores of it. Let's look at it not from the four-color point of view (or even the player's), but from the view of the character. In Frank Castle's mind, it is perfectly acceptable to kill criminals. This is his crusade, his obsession, and in his psychology, it is perhaps the only viable option. Stealing money to further this mission, particularly when it is used to wage war on crime, would be a perfectly plausible rationalization that would certainly not cause his conscience the slightest bit of trouble.

Were he shooting at Aunt May, and robbing liquor stores, though, the Punisher SHOULD lose Karma. This violates his own sense of morality, however far removed from yours or mine. In the Punisher's twisted mind, it would go against his conscience to NOT kill the bad guys and use their own resources against them.

Deadpool's another example, where his own semi-sane world view has no moral compunctions about killing. I think what is happening is that we as Game Judges, players or even people are looking at these actions not through the lens of the character's mind, but from our own morals. I think THAT's the antithesis of what role-playing's about...

<thereby gaining the benefit of freedom of action. It is grotesquely unfair to give them BOTH the complete freedom of action they enjoy AND not to assign karma penalties for actions that are, pure and simple, anti-heroic.>

If "complete freedom" is having the Mafia gunning for you at every instance, or all the people you've stolen from hunting you to collect their goodies back, then sure, that's complete freedom. The trade-off of role-playing consequence is far more insidious than any Karmic penalty, primarily because the player will never know which angle you're coming from.

A word about anti-heroes: people, even those who'd do something goofy like strap on a cape and some spandex and call themselves Captain Your-Name-Here, have varying shades of morality and conscience. Some people would have no issue about letting a murderer, pedophile, terrorist or rapist fall to certain death--heck, some people would push them. Others would want that person locked away in prison for the rest of his/her life. And yet others would want to rehabilitate these people into productive members of society.

I'm not about to get into the argument over which is right or wrong. What I would say is that this is perhaps one of the clarifying questions you should be asking your players when they bring in a new character. Where are your characters on the morality map? How far removed is that from the players? Is the player living up to the character's world view.

On a purely personal level, I am TOTALLY against the death penalty, and cannot think of another more gruesome act than taking a life. With that said, some of my most memorable role-playing experiences came from playing characters who did not share those views. This made me stretch as an RPer, and as a person.

But when I played the character in accordance to his world view, with his conscience, I shouldn't be penalized for mine (or my Judge's for that matter). Mercifully, I had a GREAT GJ who understood this and rewarded me for my less-than-heroic behaviors when appropriate.

Still, in playing a superhero who killed supervillains, I had to deal with the repercussions of having most heroes shun me, and nearly every villain trying to hunt me down. So what has been described as 'freedom' was often anything but.

<I see it as the players helping me write the game story by giving me an action to react (create/write) to.>

This is an excellent point. Using what the players give you is a great way to launch further threads that are often far more interesting than ones you can generate on your own. Plus, people/players tend to support what they, in part, create...it keeps their characters plugged into continuity and helps them flesh out and develop.

<BUT, in a game based on Super HEROISM, not to assign karma penalties for actively non-heroic actions is, IMO, completely missing the point.>

In the end, Karma is a number, and I for one think numbers and even dice are often the thing that hinders role-playing the most. I am less concerned about the trapping of the game, and more concerned about how my characters react toward one another, the NPCs and the situations I throw at them. Their explorations into the psyches of their character, their choices based upon them, and the impending consequences are infinitley more fascinating than whether or not they lose 20 Karma.

At the end of the day, characters who wear tights and fight Galactus are still people, with weird quirks and ideas and personality flaws. If some of youze guys want to play in four-colors, that's cool, but aside from super-powers, I'd rather have PEOPLE than heroes.

In my mind, THAT's the only point.

thanks for hearing me babble.

sean...

I brought up this point once before. Karma is 10% what heros think of themselves and 90% the world balancing things out. Wether or not Deadpool or the Punisher think killing is right or wrong is pretty much irrelevent. Karma is a result of the players actions and how the Marvel universe judge's those actions. The only characters above such concerncs of "right and wrong" are the Cosmic Entity types like Galactus.

If someone chooses to play differently is fine by me. To each their own. But to use the rules as stated, both technical and intented use, to justify killing is another matter all togehter. The rules say in both letter and intent that killing is wrong. And isn't it? Wether or not Frank Castle thinks killing is wrong is irrelevent in a universe that has a sentience. I'm not talking about Eternity I mean the addage good things happen to good people. To stray from this is straying from the game as it was and is meant to be. Again no big deal, be make no mistake you are starying from what being a super-HERO is all about.

To put it another way, in Sanitobvious' world Ebenezer Scrooge would never be visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future because he isn't doing anything wrong. He is simply being himself and as long as you are doing that right and wrong do not apply. Self-rationalixation at it's finest, as long as I don't think I am doing anything wrong then I am not.

And lets not forget the fact the the only people who don't lose Karma for doing "bad" things are villians. Again if you choose to pay a world of villians running around calling themselves heroes that is up to you, but say that they ARE actually heroes is to ignore the rules of the game all together.

DG :bounce:

the only universal rule for any roleplaying game is this: when a rule doesn't fit in your game, then don't use it.

again, in expressing my opinion, and certainly not wanting to make anything personal (though i can't say the same for others), here goes:

first off, in my world view, it's wrong to kill people. pure and simple. does that make it any less likely to happen? probably not.

much like the very four-color world some people who post on this board MUST live in. unlike whatever Brady/Cleaver suburb some people may reside, I live in a world we call reality. in reality, the good guys don't always win. usually, they don't, and more often the good guys aren't really even that good. so in reality, the concept of Karma as many people seem to think of it isn't the neat, tidy thing you make it out to be.

i like my RP to reflect the reality we live in. for those of you who'd rather gloss it over with four-color variable pressed-image covers and mega-super crossovers, by all means, go ahead. for me, the conversation between one player (who just stole money from the bad guys so he could fund his super-team's crimefighting) and another (who is opposed to the theft) is much more the POINT of RP than whether or not 20 Karma gets stripped from player one. the interaction, and drama, and consequence is what makes it cool...and those of you who'd rather jockey numbers can knock yrselves out.

In my worldview, as live-and-let-live as it is, Scrooge never gets visited by the Ghosts, true. (what, ya thought I'd disagree?) in his mind, he's not a bad guy. i personally think it's pretty damn goofy to have a guy being a supervillain, or even a villain, for the sake of it. most people don't really see themselves as bad, per se. to make out Scrooge as an intentional villain, as someone who got off on causing people misery, is short-sighted. Scrooge's flaws were what made him fascinating--he was a quirky old coot who seemed much more interesting at the first part of the play than at the end.

Dr. Doom and Magneto, who most people would agree are some of the coolest villains around, are not villains for the sake of villainy--they have a worldview that sets them apart. It's a beautiful thing that their motivations are not to further some stupid concept like 'evil', but rather megalomaniacal amassing power at all cost (Doom) or serving as a messiah to a disenfranchised minority (Magnus). My point is that these individuals are perhaps so interesting and so wonderful (and maybe even so popular and respected) because they are closer to real human beings than many of the superheroes they encounter.

<If someone chooses to play differently is fine by me. To each their own. But to use the rules as stated, both technical and intented use, to justify killing is another matter all togehter. The rules say in both letter and intent that killing is wrong. And isn't it? Wether or not Frank Castle thinks killing is wrong is irrelevent in a universe that has a sentience. I'm not talking about Eternity I mean the addage good things happen to good people. To stray from this is straying from the game as it was and is meant to be. Again no big deal, be make no mistake you are starying from what being a super-HERO is all about.>

Let me tell ya a little something about how Karma REALLY works. (trust me, as a practicing Buddhist for the past seven years, i have a pretty good grasp of the concept.) Sometimes, in order for Karma to play itself out, bad things happen to good people and vice versa. in a sentient universe (which i think it is), the human concept of right and wrong, morality and such are annihilated. being that everything, including people, are composed of God, and are intrinsic to this sentient universe, our world views have EVERYTHIGN to do with the Karma we reap.

let's take the example of whether heroes donate the money they stole from a Mafia boss to an orphanage. if they use the money instead of donating it, they can buy a computer which helps them stop a hundred crimes. if they donate the money, the buck stops there. or the Mafia comes calling for their loot, and where do ya think they're headed?--the orphanage. in the ensuing mayhem, several kids and caregivers get shot up. the heroes, without the benefit of their crime-busting computer, never saw it coming.

so i've established that it is impossible to figure out how Karma will play itself out. sometimes the child you save today turns into a maniacal world dictator the next. was it a good thing to save someone who in turn commits genocide? sometimes by letting a boatload of innocent people die, the one survivor can serve as a beacon of hope that rallies a nation. is it wrong to have let those people die, even if the world is saved as a result? this concept is so very vast that it is incomprehensible even to those who understand that it's incomprehensible.

what is being argued here has less to do with Karma and more with morality. again, this may not be the popular opinion, but morality is NOT a consensus: we all have our own sense of values that vary from person to person and from one circumstance to the next. it is virtually impossible to dictate morality--hell, every government on the planet, EVER, has made futile attempts at it. rest assured, your morality and mine are worlds apart, and even those people close to you may have a different shade of the flavor you sport.

with that said, the point i'm arguing is not game mechanics--you guys can have that as a gimme--but that in order to make your games more plausible (and dare i say it more enjoyable to your players), you might want to find out where they are on the morality spectrum, and where their characters are as well, and reward the roleplaying based upon how different they are and what the character and player develop as a result.

so keep on using game mechanics to hide behind the fact that you're uncomfortable with challenging your own moral fibre. me, i find that by challenging my comfort level, it makes my ability to defend my belief easier.

sean...

First off, I have to admit that I've got that damn Kylie Mingue song running through my head right now, so some of my thought processess are going to be a bit fragmented.

I've thought about this topic that I've posed and still I can't come to clear consensus. Aside from the little tangent everybody took a small drive down, I can't really defend the whole killing and karma issue. Both are right and both are wrong.

But the one real issue begs the question I asked. At what point does a slight misdemeanor against a ne'er do well count for karma loss. If the heroes recovered 100,000 dollars in extorted or ill-gotten money, do they suffer a karma loss if they donate 51% of it to the orphans? Some would say that if they kept 10% they'd still lose karma.

Follow me on this one, if our heroes in the above situation kept 49% of the money they recovered and gave $51,000 to the (insert city name here) Orpahage, and used some of the $49,000 they kept to help pay for some of the damage that might have been done, how would they qualify for a karma loss?

Even if they still wound up with $10,000, would they get hit in the karma damage? They beat up a baddie, seized his ill-gotten booty (or ill-bottom goody), gave a ton of money to orphans, paid for any property damage, and come out smelling like fresh laundry. Sounds to me like a Baseball, Chevrolet, Mom and Apple Pie moment to me. (And in my universe, they'd be up for one of those milk ads, but that's just me.)

I just find the whole question fascinating. I once had a logic professor as us a similiar question. If you remove one hair from a beard, is it still a beard? If you keep removing hairs, at what point does it become NOT a beard?

Oh well, just my Kylie Minogue induced 2cents.



Well believe me, I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid . . . and I went ahead anyway.

So what your saying is you aren't insulting anyone, it's just that anyone who disagrees isn't living in the "real" world? Semantics, gotta love'em huh?

Buddha lover or not, if you go back in time and kill Hitler you did something wrong (killing). I would blow his freakin' head off, but wouldn't delude myself into thinking what I did wasn't wrong. In Marvel killing is wrong, no matter who does it or for what reason it was done, plain and simple. I would feel like crap about having taken a life (loss of Karma) while knowing I saved millions of lives. The penalties of being a "hero".

Most of us come on this board to DICUSS a topic, not prove to everyone how right we are. If you just have to win then fine, you win. All hail the conquering hero. Although you claim to be not insulting anyone, your words describing everyone who disagrees as "living in a four color world" say otherwise. Why you can't seperate an online discussion from insulting people's views in the real world is beyond me. The topic is how we choose to play IN THE GAME. And in the game as it is written killing=loss of Karma. If you choose to play differently, fine do what you gotta do, but don't try and tell me the rules say otherwise. You can justify playing however you want, and certainly don't have to justify it to me as I'm sure you are aware of, but your position has no basis as far as the rules go. None.



DG X(

Marvel > DC

Hey meltdown,

my answer to what misdemeanors account for Karma loss is all of them. In the book is says if you are on the way to the hospital to deliver a heart to a man in need of a transplant and see a cat burgler breaking into a house and decide not to stop you lose Karma. Faling to do the right thing is the same as doing the wrong thing (in the game). I can see how it can be a quandry as to what to do but I ask you. Is the issue wether or not they stole something or how much of it they stole? If they stole a quarter out of a blind man's pity cup to call the mayor and warn him of some terrible danger, would it matter how much they stole or that they stole something period? What would the orphanage say about it if they found out they took stolen money? Wouldn't that, in a way, be possesion of stolen property (a crime)? Are ill-gotten gains not still ill-gotten gains no matter what they are used for? Would a drug dealer be justified in what he does if he gave 51% of his profits to charity?

How you answer these questions should help to define your postion on the matter and if not then just disregad. :)



DG X(

Marvel > DC

If the heroes keep the money for themselves to buy food or parts for a much needed computer to help them fight crime, it's actually quite touching. If they give it to an orpanage it is over the top philanthropy. But, in the UNited States, it is also tax evasion.

I am in agreement with not so much taking a lot of karma away as I am for doing what I posted on this topic days ago...as GJ, YOU are God (as you understand Him) of your Universe, Solar System, Earth, U.S., U.K., E.C., Rock HIll, South Carolina. If it pleases THEE to let them get away with what they have done, baby, it's your Cosmos.

I think representing "what goes around comes around" by having the heroes exposed and having to hire a publicist and a lawyer could lead to great non-combat roleplaying.

But the kicker is, spring it on them during another storyline or campaign.

Just my opion my Brothers of the Multiverse.

SDI

SDI, man...you ARE brilliant.

Thanks for summing up how Karma can be something that's inflicted upon the characters, not some arbitrary number that players can shed when they want to do something bad.

anything Karmic you inflict upon players as a part of roleplay is almost always far more sinister than sapping them of 40 Karma...

sean

Bugger.... Here I was thinking that I summed it up nicely.... Bugger

In a nutshell ....

I say kill them all and let the Almighty Maker sort through the GUff......

Disclaimer
Please note that the above statement is not ment to be taken seriously. This is a game and a game it stays to me. I do not endorse or participate in such practises.



Fangs
>>| |-- ::!o --||<<
"Yes it the Game has bugs"
"I like mine squished"
"Bon Appetite!"

Last night I watched an episode of Star Trek Next Generation.

Picard and company had to travel back in time to 19th century Earth, San Francisco. They had no time to plan for such a journey. To secure lodging for himself and the Away Team, he convinced a landlady of an inn that he and his group were a travelling Shakespearian theatre troop and that money would be forthcoming. In a later scene the landlady entered their room and asked for rent money.

With his wits and charm Picard once more was able to put the landlady off. It is then that I realized that the heroes of this story were committing a crime. Theft of services. They were stealing from the landlady by no paying her the rent money. I only thought of his because of this topic on the message board.

But, check this out: Near the end of the episode, Picard has only minutes to get back to the 24th century or be trapped forever in the 19th. During the adventure a 19th century man got aboard the Enterprise. He came back to help Picard get back to the future.

Before Picard left, he asked the man (who was somewhat affluent and famous, Samuel (Mark Twain) Clemmons, to please PAY the landlady at the inn for Picard's stay there.

Mr. Clemmons was only too happy to do so. He thanked Picard for a most fantastic adventure and for a glimpse into a hopeful future for mankind. Picard travels back to 24th century Enterprise.

You see..."heroic-karmic" law had been invoked by the screenwriter of that episode of ST:TNG! In game terms neither Picard nor his Away Team would lose Karma due to theft of sevrvices because (1) Picard was aware that it was WRONG to con the innocent landlady by not paying her the rent and (2) He found a solution in order to do the RIGHT thing, with only minutes to spare.

In the scheme of things, what is not paying a few days rent compared to saving 19th century Earth from aliens who are feeding on the inhabitant's lifeforce? After all, he techinically ultimately saved the landlady's life as well.
Lose a little karma, get a little more back, right?

However, what Picard did was perserve the ethical fiber of his character.

Predicated upon how the GJ runs his world, I believe that if a player is portraying a HERO it is the GJ's job to keep his game from turning from Marvel Super Heroes into Super Dungeons and Dragons. Whether it is laundered money or priceless works of art that no longer have a living owner , the players need to understand that this is not a treasure hunter's rpg.

But players should be permitted to exercise their free will...and the GJ should weigh the consequences of the PCs actions.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting how Picard kept from breaking the law.

SDI

Very good points SD and an excellent example of a hero doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.



DG X(

Marvel > DC

Hola muchachos!

I have a crazy idea that just might work... Instead of taking away karma for the smaller stuff like taking a crook's money, or ignoring a crime to help someone (like the heart transplant example), why not "freeze" the use of karma for the remainder of the adventure? If the heroes can somehow set the situation right (ie: by tracking down the burglar and bringing him/her to justice after delivering the heart) then the hero should get the use of karma back and perhaps a little bonus. If the matter goes unresolved then an appropriate karma deduction should be considered. The karma should remain frozen for...say...until after the next combat or life-threatening situation the hero is in. Or maybe until the hero does something worthy of an increase in karma. Just an idea...

This would of course work best for a hero and not a vigilante character (I think a distinction should be made), but could be altered a bit for the vigilante crowd.

Hasta la huevos...

-Senor Q
"It will rain soon..." *KABOOM!*

Hello Senor Q,
an interesting proposal. I think that this suggestion is somewhat harsh. Not being able to use karma. That would almost be like telling a thirsty man that he has to walk through the desert to get some water when there is a water tank right there behind you.

The proposal that I use is that I make a note of karma that they arcrue through the game and deduct any penalties not from their own personal karma but from the amount that I keep note of. When it comes to handing out Karma. The Deductions have already been removed. The only exception to this rule is when the PC kills a life. Then they lose everything and start from scratch again.

I once removed all Karma for a PC who killed someones Pet DOG because it was barking too much. I also stripped karma from another PC of the same party who condoned the action and then skewed the dead animal like a pig on a spit and said Kebab anyone. (I mean how much damage can a yappy chiwowa do ??)

These two players are no longer with our group... thankfully.



Fangs
>>| |-- ::!o --||<<
"Yes it the Game has bugs"
"I like mine squished"
"Bon Appetite!"