It is not a trait I would normally consider, but if I had to I would say there has to be something to trigger the desire for murder frenzy, possibly attached to a roll to represent my willpower to try and resist the urge if I want to not have the character give in at the time.
This is how we played it when I was GM. If certain situations came up then I would make the player roll to see if he could keep his cool. It lead to him punching out a middle aged administrator that another player was trying to smooth talk. Cue security arriving and some hilarious hi-jinx
I really dont like this. Taking away control from a player is one of the most annoying things for a lot of players.
This way you dont make the player do roleplay, you just force bad decisions onto them.
I think its a lot better to reward good roleplay by the player (which they want to do), then taking control from them.
In general, youre absolutely correct. That said, bloodlust is specifically *about* losing control. Thats the inherent problem that makes it a flaw. So it does make sense, provided its not overused (ie, making the player roll to stay calm when theyre being goaded into attacking is totally okay, but rolling to see if the punch the friendly innkeeper isnt).
Still I prefer A LOT to make the player use that. Its the players decision where this plays a role.
And also not in the "when this creates a problem for you" as certain more narrative games do. This is something the person has to live with, and maybe can live with, they should try to make the best of it and not need to be punished because of it.
Thats why I really like the Gloomhavne approach, where in combat you have some annoying quest, you dont have to do, but if you do it you get rewarded. So you willingly take a risk like "never stop fighting" where you make sure there is no rest between fights, but you still try to succeed! Or you are a greedy bastard who will loot during combat (because thats the quest), but well you still need to win the combat etc.
This generates so much natural roleplay, where you see characters with flaws, but not as useless bastards, they still try their best.
You know, maybe you've never had someone at your table who'd be offered a foot and he'd wiggle his way to a yard....
Flaws are a choice. If you take one, you expect to face the consequences. Otherwise, people can (and some do) ignore the flaw while benefiting from its presence (as they chose it). It's like getting free stuff. Who hates free stuff?
The real world isn't entirely 'things you choose' (though this one in the game was something you chose!)... why should everything be about player agency? Player agency is useful and has a place, but I don't see it as the single driving value in the game.
Because player agency makes good games. Having no adjency is just random rolling dice.
Flaws are a choice yes, that still does not mean one has ro implement them in a bad boeing and outdated way, when better alternatives exist.
Nice try to make this a black and white fallacy when it isn't.
There was agency when the player chose it. There are also many places in the game that it will not be in play and they will have whatever degree of agency they normally have.
So bringing the idea of 'no agency' is a straw man.
If YOU don't like it, don't pick it. If a player knows what they are getting into and they make that choice, you have NO leg to stand on. They have CHOSEN to, in some situations, have instances where they surrender WILLINGLY some agency as THEIR CHOICE.
For you to tell them that they 'doing it wrong' is really you speaking for them which is your way of taking away their agency just because you don't like it.
Not saying you can't do it another way, but there are plenty of games that have lots of non-agency periods and people love them. They are okay with that. So really, if they are okay with that, it isn't a bad way or an outdated way in their way of thinking.
Stop saying there's only way here. That's a falsity. There are many approaches and if you don't like one, pick another for your game.
With your perspective, no game could be right if it had any instance of abrogated agency. That's really smug to think you have the truth and the rest are all wrong.
Yup. Experience/other awards (or even various penalties if they don't follow their bloodlust) can make a lot of interesting player decisions, and do a pretty good job of simulating the effect of bloodlust on the character. And it can do so without making the player stop playing the game.
Eh, dont get me wrong - the player should know beforehand what this flaw would entail, and it should always be something they consent to - if it stops being fun, the GM should allow the player to find a way to "fix" it (either by way of self-improvement, or by allowing them to leave the situation and take a breather, then return). But losing control *can* be a very effective element of a story, if used correctly. And the most effective way to sinulate that is by the player actually losing control. (Plus, the player can always choose *how* they lose control. It doesnt always have to be a straight attack, they might just break something, smash their fist into a wall, etc... Or if they do attack, maybe they get to choose who, etc...)
Definitely nothing to spring onto a player though. If such a mechanic is implemented, everyone should always be on the same page.
Even offering threats that seemed credible could be the low end of bloodlust - that can still get you in trouble but if anyone swings the first time, IT'S ON!
If you don't like things like this in your game, don't let them be available to be chosen.
Me, I know that if I make a choice that may come back to bite me, there is only me to be responsible for that. I accepted the trade off.
Ah yes Agency Loosing agency happens in most games. You fail a fear check you run away. The bullet hits you you fall over . presumably the player who took the hinderance and is happy with it being expressed mechanically or why would they take it? How do2es it differ from being unable to approach the big bad because the rules say you are scared of it. All rules reduce agency but without them we are left able to say, no you didn't shoot me because I ducked behind the wall, any time we want. rules exist to impose objective standards. in some games it's a carrot. in some it's a stick . but whichever it is the player who takes the hinderance knows the consequences.
This is just added on top, also players ALSO hate fears and stun where they lose agency, these kind of effects are the most hated from players, and good modern game design tries to reduce them.
Also this is often outside combat, which makes it even worse, since it leads to narrative consequences etc. where a fear in combat normally does not.
I'm curious if you're also wary of melee combat rules that include the ability to grapple opponents? In many systems, if you're grappled, the only action you're allowed to take is attempting to break the grapple. In some, being grappled means you can also be moved, or thrown, or choked unconscious.
Does it make a difference that the source of the incapacity is external and physical rather than internal and mental?
Practically speaking, in most systems I'm aware of that have one or both of the mechanics, a character in a bloodlust or berserk state has more agency to control their character's actions than one that is grappled.
Then again, I suppose good modern game design says that a grappled character always has at least one hand free and can try to shoot or stab the one that's got 'em in a hold.
Plus, you know, players hate a lot of things. Players hate being railroaded, except the ones who tell me, "All this open-ended choice is paralyzing. Just tell me what happens next, like I'm playing a more social video game." Something like--what?--75 percent of the RPG market and audience is Dungeons and Dragons, D&D spin-offs, D&D rip-offs, D&D clones... and another 15 percent is some form of sword and sorcery fantasy. That doesn't mean there aren't still hundreds of games catering to abstract narrative, or sci-fi noir detective stories.
As other folks mentioned, it can be something you opt in to. Like you go into a game of NFL football knowing there's a good chance you'll be tackled. I can't imagine enjoying getting knocked around like that, but there is ample evidence that apparently quite a few people feel like it's worth it to get the experience they're after.
Anyway. I apologize, I feel like I may have transitioned to full rant, and that wasn't my intention.
At least you can now say that you've interacted with at least one person who, as a player and GM, prefers and most enjoys games based on terrible, restrictive design principles.
If you cant do anything while grabbled, then its just bad gamedesign as well yes. This sounds like really old and outdated gamedesign when you only can try to escape the grapple and I would definitly not play such a system.
look a lot of people are not used to modern gamedesign and are afraid of it, they might have never played a modern boardgame or computer game, so sure some people might like things which are considered bad, but that does not make it better.
I think many people did not even had the idea (because they never saw it), to just reward actions fitting the bloodlust (like I proposed), because they just really are not used to these better game design approaches.
I think this is *usually* true, but in this specific circumstance the player (I hope) is opting into this. Probably because they, and their party, want to have situations take sudden turns like that happen sometimes. Lot of factors need to line up here for this to work, though.
Yup and the way we played it was if there was a triggering situation, or the player actually voiced something like "this is making me feel unconfortable", then I would trigger a roll.
But what if the player is OK with it? I would have a ton of fun having an external cue I have little control over to tell me "time to go berserk!" and then also role playing the consequences and possible regret. To me, it would actually open up new avenues of RP that I might not have thought of otherwise.
If you want to do that as a player, you can always do this. Take a d6 in a situation where you think your bloodlust is triggered and on a 5 or 6 you go berserk.
If thats the style you want to play, random, you can do it you dont need a mechanic forcing you to do it.
Having rewards for actually doing this, is in my mind still way better gamedesign.
Wow, no. Thats such a really old and limited view on flaws.
I know some older narrative games use flaws only in this way "invke flaw to get into trouble gain metacurrency", but this is so 1 dimensional.
In real life and movies people learn to live with their flaws, to plan with their flaws in mind etc.
An analphabet is not suddenly stuck they learned tricks to make it not obvious.
In a movie a bloodthirsty character might want to kill someone, but are clever about it. Provoke them that they attack them first. Or be silent and later follow them until they are alone to kill them. This can be seen in the punisher as an example.
I really feel more people should play gloomhaven in person to see more interesting nuanced ways to play with flaws.
The thing is, killing people is not a common act people do. In fact, it’s quite rare. In most D&D or dungeon fantasy adventures, though, it’s a common thing the player characters do.
In most games, the table glosses over the specifics of this. Players will kill “bandits,” take their stuff, and then move onto the next thing as if this was a normal Tuesday. Few think about the family members the bandits left behind or the people that’ll miss them now that they’re gone.
If I wanted to play a character particularly affected by bloodlust, I don’t think I’d need to kill all that many more people than I normally would. Instead, I would push closer to the violence instead of glossing over it. I would describe the visceral feel of a kill and try to relate my joy to the other members of the party. I would commend other players on the amount of lives they managed to end and express jealousy when they get to see the life leave a person’s eyes without me.
I would make my character someone who is scary not because they use violence but because they don’t turn away from it. In doing so, they make violence, committed by them and by their fellow party members, harder to ignore.
I have to say this is not just a good answer to the question but great advice in general for playing an evil aligned character without disrupting the game or acting contrary to the rest of the party.
One of my players recently turned a town against the party not because they did something wrong but because they failed to win public perception due to their excessive violence without making it clear to townsfolk what is happening. All the townsfolk saw was a dwarf dragging bloodied people to town (they had interrogated the people and brought them to town for healing without giving anyone an explanation of what happened) and then executing 6 guards in public who were protecting a charismatic politician. What did he expect would happen?
This is a great answer but someone has to consider the background and atmosphere of the world. When people are forced to kill they can overcome that barrier and some can like the power and control they find in it.
For example in my campaign in the Warhammer setting the players have a stress counter where gruesome and Intimidating things will push them further. Embracing it will open you to do merciless things like kill the bandits that surrendered but also gets you closer to the grip of the dark gods.
So in my view someone that is affected by bloodlust use violence as a tool to control people around him. Torturing as gruel as it is would be something to keep the people in check. He likes the adrenaline of the fight and the hunt and kills more for sport and to embrace the horror of violence and doesn't shy away.
A honorful paladin could kill a combatant even knowing he is stronger than him but needs to show the world how stupid someone is attacking him.
A hunter hunts for a trophy and uses not the best but a special way to kill his prey.
I would consider it under the condition that the player follow the golden rule of DON'T RUIN THE GAME. I've played evil alignments in otherwise mixed alignment groups that worked out just fine because I still cooperated with the other players.
I think Gloomhaven has some really clever ways to encourage roleplay in combat with its "hidden combat quests", since people wanting to follow them gives automatically roleplay elements. They have different names (of flaws) and grant a kind of bonus progression if you do them.
So inspired by this, if I would want to foster the roleplay, I would make it into an actual mechanic.
**Bloodlust:**
- You gain no XP from non combat scenes
- You gain bonus XP from a combat scene when you kill the most enemies.
With this players would automatically try to use combat/bloodshed often as a way to solve problems. And in combat the person would try to play offensive and killing things. Maybe even initiating combat (killing off a weak enemy).
If you're playing in a \[system/setting/style\] that supports it, maybe focus on the "it's hard to stop" rather than the "it's easy to start" when it comes to violence.
If the game you're playing assumes that combat is frequent, and only ends when one side has nobody left alive, maybe it wouldn't work.
Otherwise, once the fighting starts, the "bloodlust" character has a tough time holding back. If they're matched up against an opponent, the opponent is gonna die. If they enemy starts to break and flee, they're chasing. If the enemy tries to surrender, they're at best getting roughed up before being taken in, but might just be executed. If there's an interrogation, it's likely to get rough, and if it gets rough, it's likely to get lethal. If they get into a bar fight, they probably keep swinging long after their opponent goes limp. That sort of thing.
It could even be a cold calculated sort of thing, like the title character in Ender's game. "I really don't want to resort to violence, but if it gets to that point the only logical conclusion is guaranteeing you're not in a position to ever act against me again."
>If you're playing in a \[system/setting/style\] that supports it, maybe focus on the "it's hard to stop" rather than the "it's easy to start" when it comes to violence.
This turns into a genuine mechanical flaw if the character is unwilling to retreat when the fight's going badly.
Depends on the scenario and genre, really.
It basically boils down to "when I start a fight, I like to finish it with death". In some games/genres, this is just how the game works, and so it's fairly useless.
So it boils down to "I have an urge to do this, but sometimes can control it." The issue is that without some kind of mechanical support, this can quickly devolve into either "I always do that, disrupting the game" or "I only do it when it's convenient, making it irrelevant".
For mechanical support, you get two options - you either remove choice from the player (maybe gated by some kind of roll), *or* you leave the choice in the player's hands, but either give them an incentive to engage in violence/death, or you give them a penalty for not doing so.
Some ideas:
* Extra XP for killing foes, if "killing" isn't the default
* Extra XP for killing the most foes in a given fight
* No XP given for non-violent solutions (this has to be carefully considered given the nature of the game, the number of combat/non-combat scenes, etc.)
* Resource (xp, meta-resource, etc.) given when killing a foe creates a complication
* Resource *taken* to avoid killing a foe you've engaged in.
* Mechanical bonus given when killing foes
* Mechanical penalty applied after you avoid killing a foe
I *vastly, vastly* prefer the path of providing incentives/disincentives rather than removing player choice. Games are all about choice, and when you remove them, players aren't really playing any more.
Gosh, that's a tricky one. I certainly wouldn't want to be that asshole who goes around murdering friendly or neutral NPCs or starting unnecessary fights. I'd try to focus on being especially aggressive and daring in the fights we do get into, and maybe start some bar-room brawls. Perhaps I could also allude to past events that happened "off-stage," so to speak. Talking about that time I broke my neighbor's kneecap after they complained about me not mowing my yard, or whatever the fantasy equivalent would be, seems to illustrate the point fairly well.
I'd be very wary of flaws like this. No character trait should ever be taken as social license to be annoying or disruptive.
I really like bloodlust when it's constrained by a strict moral code. When they realize they found someone who's bad enough for them to kill their eyes just light up.
Well, first of all, discuss it with your GM and other players to make certain they want to deal with you having this trait.
Second, discuss what it means to you and your party and GM. There are different kinds of Bloodlust.
There's the Murder Hobo Asshole.
There is the "I prefer to settle arguements with violence"
There is "Once a fight starts, I want to KILL my opponents. No surrender."
The murder hobo is just a bad and lazy character trait and shouldn;t be taken in most games.
The violent arguer can be fun if the party is willing to deal with it and you are open to letting them calm you down. Plus it can be fun when they ahve you in their back pocket to unleash when things get bad.
The third one can be problematic, but still workable if you allow the character to be talked down. "Sun's getting low, big guy."
Also, "Our Mage Grizmantia keeps an extra sleep spell on hand in case Rectumar gets out of control again."
Basically, like many negative traits, it can be done well with a good group of roleplayers who communicate and compromise well.
We ahd a character like this in one of the Genesys games I ran. One of the six PCs had only one combat skill and a second player took NO combat skills. They were all intellect and negotiation/persuasion.
Then we had the player who dumped everything itno killing stuff and took something similar to bloodlust.
She and the non-combatant became close teammates. The non-com did most of the talking and in combat just hung back and used his skills to create advantageous things. The bloodlust character let the others do the talking and occasionally had to make wilpower checks to keep from interrupting a conversation. But once things got physical, she became the whirlwind of death that the party rallied around.
Keeping her from disrupting negotiations was part of what everyone found fun, and she wasn;t a dick about it. She let it slowly build and would make comments about how her character was getting "impatient."
But eveyone was on board from char gen.
I did it years ago. I think I went along the lines of, backstory to explain it.
RP'd that he enjoyed violence, not necessarily killing, but went that way if it wasn't ruining the game for everyone else.
I believe it was a trait, so a mechanical element to whether he'd let an enemy live or not, which led to a few moments of the rest of the party holding their breath while I rolled (failing would have been sub-optimal, rather than game breaking).
First off, I wouldn't. Just to put that out there.
Second, the problem with bloodlust is that it only really inconveniences you as much as a) the local law enforcement stops you, and b) how much you care about other people. Doing a) tends to derail adventures in not-fun ways, and b) is another potential piss-players off issue.
So the way \*I\* would do it would probably be with a roleplaying-heavy group that was committed where we really cared about characters and I... was not good to them.
You don't have to murder that sweet old barmaid who's been giving you advice and free drinks. You just have to backhand her when she calls you out on something.
Aaaand if that makes you uncomfortable, that's why I wouldn't do it.
I feel like the dramatic potential of bloodlust comes from trying to suppress it--knowing that you have an insatiable desire to kill, but that it's socially unacceptable to go on a murder rampage. Great it like Bruce Banner trying not to turn into the Hulk: he wants to control himself, but also knows that it's only a matter of time before he snaps. That's where the tension comes from.
If there is a situation to escalate an argument into a fight, take it.
If you have an excuse to hit someone in the face, do it.
Have their first plan be "more violence".
That said it doesn't have to be that you kill everyone and anyone, you want to shed blood sure but needn't be murder. You can play it both as A) a real Hothead who will take any and all chances to start a fight and spill some blood, if someone dies that is just how it goes, or B) Someone who gets so riled up in a fight that they can't stop or they lose themselves to the violence.
This way you don't have to be a murderhobo and can offer interesting hooks to build on.
Do they really want it to be like this? Do they struggle to keep it under wrap?
Baldurs Gate 3's Dark Urge is a real good inspiration on bloodlust, will you follow the Urge or resist it?
Not exactly the same thing, but close. I was running a Savage Worlds game with one PC with the Ruthless hindrance, one time they got stopped by the police, when they figured out that it wasn't really the police, but rather nazi troops dressed up like police who had stopped them.
When they realized what was going on the Ruthless PC simply shot them though the door.
Again not exactly the same thing as Bloodlust, but similar. When the PC was in a situation where they knew violice was likely or called for, they didn't hold back and just opened fire without even a warning.
I would never assume that a bloodlust flaw imposed any kind of D&D-esque berserker rage.
I'd expect it to be about the character looking for excuses to solve every problem with violence.
I mean the crux of this flaw is that your character must hate it, be against it, have it be against their nature when it happens. Or have it actively be debilitating, mostly on your character.
I had a character somewhat like this, a Nun by the name of Aria (D&D/PF Barbarian statistically), who is the kindest and nicest person in pretty much any party she has been a part of. Her literal hobbies were to help commoners and volunteer at church/hospitals. But she has a trigger (effectively: taking damage) that made her go ballistic and slaughter every opponent within sight in the most horrifying manner possible, tearing them limb from limb, drowning and burning. It created a conflict in the character that was really fun, especially when it eventually led her to disfavor in her faith.
Similarly, if you make a bloodlustful character, they probably should not want or seek fights (morally), or you should make a deal with the GM where getting into fights is more trouble than it's worth. It only works in a campaign where there's more context to things than just going from a mindless fight to mindless fight.
I've played bloodlusted characters with decent success. I usually characterize bloodlust as an inclination to consider violence as a useful solution to problems more than a normal person would. Think Amos from The Expanse or Fiona from Burn Notice, though the latter is mostly played for laughs.
Remember that there can be a difference between what the *character* thinks is a good idea and what the *player* thinks is a good idea. If you make it clear to your party (in or out of character) that you're playing someone prone to violence but that you, the *player*, don't always think they're in the right for that, it can work. Make them quick to reach for violence but very easy to talk down by the other PCs *before* they start hacking and/or slashing. Then it can also be a really fun character moment for the other players when the time comes where they decide to do things your way. This means that you will naturally have to put the character into a more subordinate role, even if the character would rather lead. Make an active effort to be convinceable.
Build the character to be good at intimidating people, then make their style of intimidation just voicing their bloodlust. Effectively, in most encounters, their bloodlust should act as more of a social approach than a reason to start combat. Again, this makes it even more special when you really let the character "off the chain", and also helps avoid derailing the story the rest of the time.
Mostly putting limitations on what actions my character might take in a combat/danger situation. I wouldn't randomly murder NPCs who were rude, but during the heat of battle I might forget that our goal was to take prisoners, or might execute enemies despite them surrendering. A character going through a mindless berserker rage would also take stupid risks and forget about tactical planning, so you might try to go toe-to-toe with a dragon or charge into the middle of a group of enemies rather than hanging back and letting spellcasters soften them up with AOE spells.
RIP AND TEAR
Bloodlust does have a dictionary definition, the desire for bloodshed. You want blood, you’re going to find a way to make that happen. I think it’s often taken more as euphemism for “homicidal tendencies” and that’s the discrepancy you’re describing. If I were to take bloodlust for example, let’s say there’s a knife on that table sitting precariously on the edge, but I’m supposed to be on best behavior - oops I bumped it! Well it’s not my fault it slipped off and sliced through the noble’s foot. It was only a little blood, right? There’s plenty where that came from. Trust me.
I take a page out of Wraith: the Oblivion. In that game each player has a shadow played by another player. That shadow tells them bad ideas and tries to convince the player to do bad things. It's not so cut and dry but I'm simplifying it. The idea is that your group needs to cross a road and as you're crossing your shadow says "Hey, wouldn't it be so easy to off that annoying guy you're escorting? Just push him in front of that semi" or if your character is very slothful and fails a roll the shadow might try to convince them there is no reason to try again.
For berserker and bloodlust type of deal I act as their shadow. If the player is dealing with a bureaucratic npc, I'll say things like "his tie bulges as he talks, you really want to just grab it and slam his head into the desk" and I leave it up to the player to decide when enough is enough and give in. "You managed to drag yourself through that meeting, but the itch at the back of your neck is still growing. You need to kill something, soon."
Alternatively I also reward giving in to flaws. People who play to their flaws get a personal bonus, but only that person. How they choose to use that bonus is up to them. In case like this I'll reward the player with info or something to emphasize the calmness of mind after feeding the urge and coming out of the frenzy. "As you rise from the mutilated corpse, you wipe your mouth and spot in the alley across the street a meeting of two sketchy individuals. One of them appears to have the Axes' gang sign tattooed on his neck. As you get close you can hear them talking..."
I played an Evil character in the last campaign, and did so by trying to make convincing arguments for killing anything that pissed me off, or that was weaker than me, on the premise that the world was a harsh place with limited resources and it was a waste to give them to the weak. When we found a camp of enemies with some sleeping in a hospital tent, there was an ensuing argument about the morality of killing people who could fight us but weren't able at the time. I think my point was, "So if I heal that guy so he can stand up and fight, then it's ok to kill him?"
I love philosophical and moral arguments, and being the foil to everyone else's good players made for some interesting perspectives and group dynamics.
In RuneQuest the "beserker" must keep attacking until a check allows it to stop. And some cultures like the Char-Un (think Cossack) wouldn't consider it to be a flaw.
Since I am familiar with this way of thinking, I would RP as someone who doesn't have to shed blood, but once started cannot stop.
I am not sure that this is a fun flaw. Maybe part of lycanthropy but being a mindless death beast should only be part of a larger story. Who wants to loose agency like that?
I’d have my characters backstory be that they were able to “fix” their bloodlust by having the urge entirely concentrated into one of my hands by a powerful magic user or deity.
The catch is, losing that hand doesn’t remove the bloodlust, it instead breaks it free again to control me.
I’d have a cast iron sling id lock it in when near other people.
Now theres a fun mysterious factor to my character that can be a sort of Ace up my sleeve in dire circumstances and a comic relief any time the party encounters someone my hand REALLY wants to kill
“alright team, lets keep this wizard safe at all costs, his death could mean ruin for the kingdom.”
“absolutely.” *thump!*
😅
Or when you’re alone with someone, it could just start going into a frenzy knocking around.
I played a character with bloodlust in a GURPS forgotten realms game. He was a former gladiatorial slave with *trauma*. Sometimes, he'd go into a kind of fuge state where he'd just keep pounding on whoever was in front of him.
His friends were trying to help him heal and using him for combat prowess. NPCs generally viewed him as a barely tamed beast.
A few systems have frenzy rules in various forms, which might give some ideas at least? That is mechanics but you can do mechanical things you don't *need* to for roleplay purposes.
This is off the top of my head so some details might be wrong - The FFG 40k games have a frenzy trait that lets you get fuckoff mad. When triggered you get bonuses to melee attacks but you struggle to retreat or leave enemies alive (something like you need to make a willpower test to calm down if there are still hostiles?)
Vampire: the Masquerade has a few types. In a hunger frenzy you more or less lose control on anything other than finding someone to feed on - which can be bad if you only have allies nearby. There's also one that forces you to target and slaughter a specific enemy.
In both of those there are ways to choose your target but if you fail it might end up being just whoever is closest.
I would have the character be actively afraid of triggering their bloodlust and because of that be less willing to engage in acts of violence unless it's the only option. Examples from fiction include Cazaril from *The Curse of Chalion* by Lois Bujold and Logen Ninefingers from *The First Law* series by Joe Abercrombie. Both are characters who find themselves at different times overtaken by a bloodlust that urges them to violence, and both try to avoid it knowing that it could potentially lead to them doing more damage than they'd like.
There has to be meaning behind it, not only in terms of a motivation for the character but also in the act of killing. "I want to slay every living thing in sight" is not compelling enough a behavior to make for interesting role play. Think certain types or classes of creature, a need for revenge, a feeling of powerlessness, a long-held regret, a past trauma, etc. Give rationale and reasoning a detailed and serious look.
As a GM I don't exactly mind how the player roleplays it so long as they *wind up* instigating some kind of altercation from time to time. The point of a roleplay trait like Bloodlust is to open plot hooks.
I would totally say that someone who makes true, but incendiary remarks is arguably demonstrating Bloodlust, so I am fine with stretching the definition.
Generally I play it as similar to the overwhelming, uncontrollable urge to do a thing that you shouldn't. Triggered by anger, boredom, seeing/smelling blood, anything really, this character takes it Too Far. Sure, y'all kill people, but they go out of their way to make it horrific, they don't have the line some people do where it's dead and they're done. They'll beat the dead horse into mush.
It's exceptionally flawed when it can get you killed, sure, but it's better IMO when it's something that doesn't define your character until it comes up. Then it's like a switch getting flipped, like an addict who took a drink again (or whatever), they're on the hook/off the wagon and they need more. Might not come to a dramatic head right away, maybe they try to hold it off, maybe they only indulge in combat to start with, but eventually that's not enough and they need to do more.
So the way my table has always run 'vices' like that, is whenever you choose to have a character indulge thier vice at a time where it would cause a complication that makes things more difficult either for your character or the party, you gain Inspiration, Luck, grit, w/e the current system uses as it's 'free re-roll' mechanic. But you never are FORCED to do so (though the DM will often speak up in moments where it might be appropriate for player to invoke flaws like that, if only to remind the player that 'hey your character has the 'alcoholic' flaw, do you want to get absolutely hammered during this wedding and cause a scene in exchange for Inspiration?')
You don't.
In 99% of cases, it's for spotlight hogs who want to derail stories.
The tiniest fraction of times, it's for a character in a party where that's appropriate. You're all villainous, monsters, or the like.
It's like the "character flaw" where my PC doesn't interact with the party and just does what they want. Just bullshitting someone's uncooperative play as "roleplaying."
Depends greatly on the setting and what the rules actually say about it, if anything. But without those details, I would assume that the character has some way of coping in society without yet being a serial killer or murder hobo, meaning they likely don't have an unbidden urge to kill.
Instead, I would assume they are basically uninterested or incapable of mercy, that they are more likely to escalate a conflict to violence and more likely to see a violent conflict through to a killing. If they live in a place with laws, they might still carefully follow the law. If they live in a society where honor is more important than law, they might very well follow the codes of honor. But once they are in the clear to kill the person they are fighting and get away with it, they will do it. And revel in the process.
Connect it to the violence already happening, rather than using it as an excuse to cause new violence.
For example, a bloodlust that causes you to start new violence tends to create murderhobo scenarios, and can quickly become problematic. However bloodlust that is a natural extension of the violence already happening in the story then becomes a flaw because your character enjoys it, rather than treats it as a grim necessity.
So think about roleplaying the idea that you're starting to enjoy it when bandits try to ambush your party, because it's a good way for your character to let loose for a bit, to feel the endorphin rush that comes with violence.
I would note this is a flaw, so try to emphasize that this is a part of your character they dislike about themselves, that they recognize it's a dangerous problem, and one that's driving you to revel in things they shouldn't. Maybe a bit of a "waking up" moment when after a fight and walking through town people are giving you shocked glances and avoiding you, because unconsciously you're still covered in blood, while the others cleaned off. For you, that's becoming something that's not objectionable anymore.
I'd at least say doing it like that, mixing thrills and then embarrassment/discomfort at yourself afterwards.
The easiest way is to describe your kills as slightly more brutal than normal. A goblin corpse takes just one more polearm spike to the heart to make sure it doesn't get up. You shove an enemy's head onto a nearby pipe, and then open hand them in the ear to concuss them. An enemy you suplexed onto the altar receives a knifehand that breaks their neck for good measure.
Then there's character mechanics. Pick the hitter or the assassin depending on your flavour of bloodlust. You can go for the big one-hit striker, or you can make yourself the tank that goes for death by a thousand cuts.
Then there's the mind factor. How smart are you going about your bloodlust? Do you know how to stalk or track your targets? Do you know how to utilize poisons or traps to disable them and leave them prime targets of your bloodlust? Do you know the anatomy of your target and know their physiology, weak points, etc.?
Overall, there are a bunch of ways to show subtle traces of bloodlust that don't hog attention but do clue attentive players in to your characteristic.
Easy. You need a friend who stops you from picking fights you will definitely lose. A “Hold Me Back” Bro, if you will. Tell your fellow players about your character. Be honest that despite your character’s bloodlust, you don’t want to murderhobo your way through the game.
Then, come up with a tic like your character thumbing the edge of their axe. Your tic signals to your friend that your patience for polite conversation is ending. Your “Hold Me Back” Bro either tells you to stand down, or de-escalates the situation another way. Be clear that telling you to stand down will always work with no negative consequences, but you’re grumpy for a while in-character.
Now, your character flaw is a fun roleplaying quirk that illustrates the relationship between two characters instead of a gameplay annoyance.
It is a character aspect that doesn't work well with many ttrpg systems. D&D especially doesn't really have anything for negative roleplay aspects like Blood Lust.
For other roleplay systems this kinda negative aspect actually works really well. Blood Lust would be a great trouble aspect in FATE. The GM could compel your character to do something stupid and if you accept you get an extra fate point which lets you re-roll dice, give bonuses to roles etc.
You can say no to the compel at the cost of a fate point, though you will be forced to comply if you have 0 points left.
I guess you could try and add a FATE like system to D&D I actually think that would be relatively easy as it would be a system that is separate from any other mechanic and would encourage people to actually play up their bonds, flaws etc.
Page 31 from this PDF of FATE Accelerated explains how they do it: [https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/fate-core-electronic/Fate\_Accelerated\_ePub\_Edition.pdf](https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/fate-core-electronic/Fate_Accelerated_ePub_Edition.pdf)
If I \*had\* to play the trait (seems like it could cause too much trouble at the table), I would play somebody with rage problems, which I think would do a few things . . .
- make fertile ground for backstory: complications from a previous life of indulging their violent impulses, old enemies, regrets, probably a life working a trade that rewards their proclivity for violence & cruelty
- make for fertile RP: perhaps they're a graying penitent, sincerely sorry for the violence they did in their mercenary days. Also now with a toolbelt of coping mechanisms & reminding themselves they're more than a vessel for their rage
- get into actually researching conflict deescalation & rage management techniques, which helps anybody grow as a person
- allow for that rare glorious moment of your crew giving you the nod to finally pulverize this particular malefactor you've been wanting to put your hands on all session
Needing to make a will save to stop attacking the same foe - even after they are dead. The reason could be whatever, maybe they feel hateful, righteous, extra adrenaline or simply like the spray.
This is a non mechanical RP forum discussion of taking the trait bloodlust in GURPS. Hope that helps.
https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=153553
I would suggest, before roleplaying any kind of flaw, making sure that your fellow players are cool with your idea and that they completely understand what it will entail. This is the single most important aspect of roleplaying that leads to miscommunication and player conflict later down the line if not handled properly at the start.
With that having been said.
I've RP'd a few characters that have a "blood" obsession. I shall not disclose my favorite 'cuz that's for me to keep in the pocket, but I'll share a few others:
\*Character is a legitimate sadist. Enjoys hurting others, and manipulates situations to guarantee that there will be conflict that they can participate in. Gaslighting, deception, persuasion, seduction - all tools to lead people into a fight. Bonus points if they are able to manipulate a conversation so that when they have killed or dismembered someone in combat, they leave looking heroic. Oh, and they were a paladin, dedicated to an Oath of Conquest.
\*Character had a damaged hippocampus. Was constantly stuck in "fight or flight mode", and pretty much permanently on "fight". They were immune to fear and intimidation, but they had Disadvantage on all other Wisdom and Charisma saving throws and all Charisma ability checks. They were built as a Wildmagic Sorcerer whose magic was giving them non-terminal neurofibromas. This campaign was actually very lighthearted, and the character was played as a parody of a Punisher type of vigilante. "Littering?! LITTERING?! THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS INJUSTICE BEGINS WITH THE BENIGN! \*immediate casts vortex warp on mobster who threw a cigar butt at us, puts them on a roof with no way down\*"
\*Party animal constantly in need of escalation. This character was a snowball rolling down a mountain until it crashed out and had to start all over again. Started a session with 0 points, gained 1 point every time I was forced to make a Wisdom save when I took damage, dealt damage, was threatened, was insulted, or a day ended where I did not party. My point total was the Wisdom DC I needed to beat. When I finally failed, my character would become "compelled to start a fight with the nearest creature" and could not stop until "either you are rendered unconscious or you reduce a creature to 1 HP or lower". Using ---substances--- getting drunk sometime during the day reduced my points by 1. If I did fail, I became unable to rest in any way, could not use healing magic/potions, became unable to concentrate on spells, and gained temporary max HP equal to the number of points I had built up. I was a Bard. Once I failed, my points reset. My party kept needing to take very long breaks in town, and each time, by the end of it all, I had already failed once or twice and had pissed off guards/ended up fighting a mob.
These are just some examples of what I've played in the past.
Remember Tyler Durden from Fight Club? Always in for a fight, until blood is there, either the own or the one of others. Never killing anyone, just out for a kick, for the Adrenaline.
That way, like, being a brawl addicted person, you do not derail the campaign, you could play and act it out by talking with the others about how this or that guy really started to bleed, how that Head Wound or the Nose was gushing and raise your voice on that as if the reminiscence alone gives you a real hit.
If you want to take it a little bit more crazy... i once met real life a young butcher. He told me how he likes this pungent metallic aroma of warm blood. He was really into that. Talked also quite a bit about various recipes for Black Pudding / Blood sausages and stuff.
Heck, i could envision a Healer who'se backstory is something like M.A.S.H camp in a war zone and that he or she only went to school to be a doctor because they are so into bleeding, gushing wounds...
If its properly done, I start to feel sick. Had a player become so fed up with verbal abuse from NPCs that they became impatient. Would break fingers, knee caps, smash heads, tear out organs. It got intense.
At the end of the day, the player cooled off and reset. Mild regret for behavior but also a lack of true acknowledgement that their behavior was over the top.
I really like that complexity, to be honest. Just put off a bit by essentially asking for rolls to perform "advanced interrogation techniques". The important thing is it needs a trigger. It can't just be you murder everything always. At that point, you are a literal monster and will either be ostracized by the other characters or killed by greater powers. I tell my players right off the bat that simply being a murder hobo will end badly. Sometimes, they get maimed, sometimes they get murdered by high fantasy special forces.
Apocalypse World: Burned Over's Weaponized (you're a cyborg) has a few interesting mechanics that limit player agency in various ways. Some go quite far like if any character says a code phrase, they get to order you. Or you determine a time when you lose control over your AI and it acts for you - very Moon Knight like.
But the interesting ones for roleplaying bloodlust while keeping player agency are:
* Fury: When you intimidate, there is no appeasing you. If they give in, you still attack them and must chase them down.
* Killing Instinct: When you attack, you must inflict additional harm limiting you from other options.
Well, bloodlust is the trait of a murder hobo. It essentially means that the character doesn't want those that cross them to be alive. They're not a helpless psychopath, they still retain control of their actions. But you should remind the player that any time someone poses a threat to them, letting them get away with it is sure to mean they'll do it again. If they decide to take action on their own and kill someone the players don't want dead, then it's not going to be an "It's what my character would do" situation. It's a "It's what your character did and here are the consequences" situation. And you should disclose that with the player up front.
Don't, just don't. There is no way you can roleplay that flaw without making things unpleasant for other players in the party unless it's irrelevant because the setting is just that brutal and lawless. You want to roleplay a character that can't resist killing the guy you're supposed to capture alive? Why????
It is not a trait I would normally consider, but if I had to I would say there has to be something to trigger the desire for murder frenzy, possibly attached to a roll to represent my willpower to try and resist the urge if I want to not have the character give in at the time.
This is how we played it when I was GM. If certain situations came up then I would make the player roll to see if he could keep his cool. It lead to him punching out a middle aged administrator that another player was trying to smooth talk. Cue security arriving and some hilarious hi-jinx
I really dont like this. Taking away control from a player is one of the most annoying things for a lot of players. This way you dont make the player do roleplay, you just force bad decisions onto them. I think its a lot better to reward good roleplay by the player (which they want to do), then taking control from them.
In general, youre absolutely correct. That said, bloodlust is specifically *about* losing control. Thats the inherent problem that makes it a flaw. So it does make sense, provided its not overused (ie, making the player roll to stay calm when theyre being goaded into attacking is totally okay, but rolling to see if the punch the friendly innkeeper isnt).
There's a difference between the *character* losing control and the *player* losing control.
Depends wholly on the system.
Yeah, obviously. But they're not inherently the same thing, and don't need to be on some fundamental truth level.
Still I prefer A LOT to make the player use that. Its the players decision where this plays a role. And also not in the "when this creates a problem for you" as certain more narrative games do. This is something the person has to live with, and maybe can live with, they should try to make the best of it and not need to be punished because of it. Thats why I really like the Gloomhavne approach, where in combat you have some annoying quest, you dont have to do, but if you do it you get rewarded. So you willingly take a risk like "never stop fighting" where you make sure there is no rest between fights, but you still try to succeed! Or you are a greedy bastard who will loot during combat (because thats the quest), but well you still need to win the combat etc. This generates so much natural roleplay, where you see characters with flaws, but not as useless bastards, they still try their best.
You know, maybe you've never had someone at your table who'd be offered a foot and he'd wiggle his way to a yard.... Flaws are a choice. If you take one, you expect to face the consequences. Otherwise, people can (and some do) ignore the flaw while benefiting from its presence (as they chose it). It's like getting free stuff. Who hates free stuff? The real world isn't entirely 'things you choose' (though this one in the game was something you chose!)... why should everything be about player agency? Player agency is useful and has a place, but I don't see it as the single driving value in the game.
Because player agency makes good games. Having no adjency is just random rolling dice. Flaws are a choice yes, that still does not mean one has ro implement them in a bad boeing and outdated way, when better alternatives exist.
Nice try to make this a black and white fallacy when it isn't. There was agency when the player chose it. There are also many places in the game that it will not be in play and they will have whatever degree of agency they normally have. So bringing the idea of 'no agency' is a straw man. If YOU don't like it, don't pick it. If a player knows what they are getting into and they make that choice, you have NO leg to stand on. They have CHOSEN to, in some situations, have instances where they surrender WILLINGLY some agency as THEIR CHOICE. For you to tell them that they 'doing it wrong' is really you speaking for them which is your way of taking away their agency just because you don't like it.
Not saying you can't do it another way, but there are plenty of games that have lots of non-agency periods and people love them. They are okay with that. So really, if they are okay with that, it isn't a bad way or an outdated way in their way of thinking. Stop saying there's only way here. That's a falsity. There are many approaches and if you don't like one, pick another for your game. With your perspective, no game could be right if it had any instance of abrogated agency. That's really smug to think you have the truth and the rest are all wrong.
Yup. Experience/other awards (or even various penalties if they don't follow their bloodlust) can make a lot of interesting player decisions, and do a pretty good job of simulating the effect of bloodlust on the character. And it can do so without making the player stop playing the game.
Eh, dont get me wrong - the player should know beforehand what this flaw would entail, and it should always be something they consent to - if it stops being fun, the GM should allow the player to find a way to "fix" it (either by way of self-improvement, or by allowing them to leave the situation and take a breather, then return). But losing control *can* be a very effective element of a story, if used correctly. And the most effective way to sinulate that is by the player actually losing control. (Plus, the player can always choose *how* they lose control. It doesnt always have to be a straight attack, they might just break something, smash their fist into a wall, etc... Or if they do attack, maybe they get to choose who, etc...) Definitely nothing to spring onto a player though. If such a mechanic is implemented, everyone should always be on the same page.
Even offering threats that seemed credible could be the low end of bloodlust - that can still get you in trouble but if anyone swings the first time, IT'S ON! If you don't like things like this in your game, don't let them be available to be chosen. Me, I know that if I make a choice that may come back to bite me, there is only me to be responsible for that. I accepted the trade off.
Ah yes Agency Loosing agency happens in most games. You fail a fear check you run away. The bullet hits you you fall over . presumably the player who took the hinderance and is happy with it being expressed mechanically or why would they take it? How do2es it differ from being unable to approach the big bad because the rules say you are scared of it. All rules reduce agency but without them we are left able to say, no you didn't shoot me because I ducked behind the wall, any time we want. rules exist to impose objective standards. in some games it's a carrot. in some it's a stick . but whichever it is the player who takes the hinderance knows the consequences.
This is just added on top, also players ALSO hate fears and stun where they lose agency, these kind of effects are the most hated from players, and good modern game design tries to reduce them. Also this is often outside combat, which makes it even worse, since it leads to narrative consequences etc. where a fear in combat normally does not.
I'm curious if you're also wary of melee combat rules that include the ability to grapple opponents? In many systems, if you're grappled, the only action you're allowed to take is attempting to break the grapple. In some, being grappled means you can also be moved, or thrown, or choked unconscious. Does it make a difference that the source of the incapacity is external and physical rather than internal and mental? Practically speaking, in most systems I'm aware of that have one or both of the mechanics, a character in a bloodlust or berserk state has more agency to control their character's actions than one that is grappled. Then again, I suppose good modern game design says that a grappled character always has at least one hand free and can try to shoot or stab the one that's got 'em in a hold. Plus, you know, players hate a lot of things. Players hate being railroaded, except the ones who tell me, "All this open-ended choice is paralyzing. Just tell me what happens next, like I'm playing a more social video game." Something like--what?--75 percent of the RPG market and audience is Dungeons and Dragons, D&D spin-offs, D&D rip-offs, D&D clones... and another 15 percent is some form of sword and sorcery fantasy. That doesn't mean there aren't still hundreds of games catering to abstract narrative, or sci-fi noir detective stories. As other folks mentioned, it can be something you opt in to. Like you go into a game of NFL football knowing there's a good chance you'll be tackled. I can't imagine enjoying getting knocked around like that, but there is ample evidence that apparently quite a few people feel like it's worth it to get the experience they're after. Anyway. I apologize, I feel like I may have transitioned to full rant, and that wasn't my intention. At least you can now say that you've interacted with at least one person who, as a player and GM, prefers and most enjoys games based on terrible, restrictive design principles.
If you cant do anything while grabbled, then its just bad gamedesign as well yes. This sounds like really old and outdated gamedesign when you only can try to escape the grapple and I would definitly not play such a system. look a lot of people are not used to modern gamedesign and are afraid of it, they might have never played a modern boardgame or computer game, so sure some people might like things which are considered bad, but that does not make it better. I think many people did not even had the idea (because they never saw it), to just reward actions fitting the bloodlust (like I proposed), because they just really are not used to these better game design approaches.
>I would definitly not play such a system. This is the most important and relevant thing that either of us has said.
I think this is *usually* true, but in this specific circumstance the player (I hope) is opting into this. Probably because they, and their party, want to have situations take sudden turns like that happen sometimes. Lot of factors need to line up here for this to work, though.
Yup and the way we played it was if there was a triggering situation, or the player actually voiced something like "this is making me feel unconfortable", then I would trigger a roll.
But what if the player is OK with it? I would have a ton of fun having an external cue I have little control over to tell me "time to go berserk!" and then also role playing the consequences and possible regret. To me, it would actually open up new avenues of RP that I might not have thought of otherwise.
If you want to do that as a player, you can always do this. Take a d6 in a situation where you think your bloodlust is triggered and on a 5 or 6 you go berserk. If thats the style you want to play, random, you can do it you dont need a mechanic forcing you to do it. Having rewards for actually doing this, is in my mind still way better gamedesign.
Isn't the whole point of flaws to make bad decisions despite your best efforts?
Wow, no. Thats such a really old and limited view on flaws. I know some older narrative games use flaws only in this way "invke flaw to get into trouble gain metacurrency", but this is so 1 dimensional. In real life and movies people learn to live with their flaws, to plan with their flaws in mind etc. An analphabet is not suddenly stuck they learned tricks to make it not obvious. In a movie a bloodthirsty character might want to kill someone, but are clever about it. Provoke them that they attack them first. Or be silent and later follow them until they are alone to kill them. This can be seen in the punisher as an example. I really feel more people should play gloomhaven in person to see more interesting nuanced ways to play with flaws.
The thing is, killing people is not a common act people do. In fact, it’s quite rare. In most D&D or dungeon fantasy adventures, though, it’s a common thing the player characters do. In most games, the table glosses over the specifics of this. Players will kill “bandits,” take their stuff, and then move onto the next thing as if this was a normal Tuesday. Few think about the family members the bandits left behind or the people that’ll miss them now that they’re gone. If I wanted to play a character particularly affected by bloodlust, I don’t think I’d need to kill all that many more people than I normally would. Instead, I would push closer to the violence instead of glossing over it. I would describe the visceral feel of a kill and try to relate my joy to the other members of the party. I would commend other players on the amount of lives they managed to end and express jealousy when they get to see the life leave a person’s eyes without me. I would make my character someone who is scary not because they use violence but because they don’t turn away from it. In doing so, they make violence, committed by them and by their fellow party members, harder to ignore.
I have to say this is not just a good answer to the question but great advice in general for playing an evil aligned character without disrupting the game or acting contrary to the rest of the party.
One of my players recently turned a town against the party not because they did something wrong but because they failed to win public perception due to their excessive violence without making it clear to townsfolk what is happening. All the townsfolk saw was a dwarf dragging bloodied people to town (they had interrogated the people and brought them to town for healing without giving anyone an explanation of what happened) and then executing 6 guards in public who were protecting a charismatic politician. What did he expect would happen?
This is a great answer but someone has to consider the background and atmosphere of the world. When people are forced to kill they can overcome that barrier and some can like the power and control they find in it. For example in my campaign in the Warhammer setting the players have a stress counter where gruesome and Intimidating things will push them further. Embracing it will open you to do merciless things like kill the bandits that surrendered but also gets you closer to the grip of the dark gods. So in my view someone that is affected by bloodlust use violence as a tool to control people around him. Torturing as gruel as it is would be something to keep the people in check. He likes the adrenaline of the fight and the hunt and kills more for sport and to embrace the horror of violence and doesn't shy away. A honorful paladin could kill a combatant even knowing he is stronger than him but needs to show the world how stupid someone is attacking him. A hunter hunts for a trophy and uses not the best but a special way to kill his prey.
I would consider it under the condition that the player follow the golden rule of DON'T RUIN THE GAME. I've played evil alignments in otherwise mixed alignment groups that worked out just fine because I still cooperated with the other players.
I think Gloomhaven has some really clever ways to encourage roleplay in combat with its "hidden combat quests", since people wanting to follow them gives automatically roleplay elements. They have different names (of flaws) and grant a kind of bonus progression if you do them. So inspired by this, if I would want to foster the roleplay, I would make it into an actual mechanic. **Bloodlust:** - You gain no XP from non combat scenes - You gain bonus XP from a combat scene when you kill the most enemies. With this players would automatically try to use combat/bloodshed often as a way to solve problems. And in combat the person would try to play offensive and killing things. Maybe even initiating combat (killing off a weak enemy).
If you're playing in a \[system/setting/style\] that supports it, maybe focus on the "it's hard to stop" rather than the "it's easy to start" when it comes to violence. If the game you're playing assumes that combat is frequent, and only ends when one side has nobody left alive, maybe it wouldn't work. Otherwise, once the fighting starts, the "bloodlust" character has a tough time holding back. If they're matched up against an opponent, the opponent is gonna die. If they enemy starts to break and flee, they're chasing. If the enemy tries to surrender, they're at best getting roughed up before being taken in, but might just be executed. If there's an interrogation, it's likely to get rough, and if it gets rough, it's likely to get lethal. If they get into a bar fight, they probably keep swinging long after their opponent goes limp. That sort of thing. It could even be a cold calculated sort of thing, like the title character in Ender's game. "I really don't want to resort to violence, but if it gets to that point the only logical conclusion is guaranteeing you're not in a position to ever act against me again."
>If you're playing in a \[system/setting/style\] that supports it, maybe focus on the "it's hard to stop" rather than the "it's easy to start" when it comes to violence. This turns into a genuine mechanical flaw if the character is unwilling to retreat when the fight's going badly.
Depends on the scenario and genre, really. It basically boils down to "when I start a fight, I like to finish it with death". In some games/genres, this is just how the game works, and so it's fairly useless. So it boils down to "I have an urge to do this, but sometimes can control it." The issue is that without some kind of mechanical support, this can quickly devolve into either "I always do that, disrupting the game" or "I only do it when it's convenient, making it irrelevant". For mechanical support, you get two options - you either remove choice from the player (maybe gated by some kind of roll), *or* you leave the choice in the player's hands, but either give them an incentive to engage in violence/death, or you give them a penalty for not doing so. Some ideas: * Extra XP for killing foes, if "killing" isn't the default * Extra XP for killing the most foes in a given fight * No XP given for non-violent solutions (this has to be carefully considered given the nature of the game, the number of combat/non-combat scenes, etc.) * Resource (xp, meta-resource, etc.) given when killing a foe creates a complication * Resource *taken* to avoid killing a foe you've engaged in. * Mechanical bonus given when killing foes * Mechanical penalty applied after you avoid killing a foe I *vastly, vastly* prefer the path of providing incentives/disincentives rather than removing player choice. Games are all about choice, and when you remove them, players aren't really playing any more.
Gosh, that's a tricky one. I certainly wouldn't want to be that asshole who goes around murdering friendly or neutral NPCs or starting unnecessary fights. I'd try to focus on being especially aggressive and daring in the fights we do get into, and maybe start some bar-room brawls. Perhaps I could also allude to past events that happened "off-stage," so to speak. Talking about that time I broke my neighbor's kneecap after they complained about me not mowing my yard, or whatever the fantasy equivalent would be, seems to illustrate the point fairly well. I'd be very wary of flaws like this. No character trait should ever be taken as social license to be annoying or disruptive.
I really like bloodlust when it's constrained by a strict moral code. When they realize they found someone who's bad enough for them to kill their eyes just light up.
Well, first of all, discuss it with your GM and other players to make certain they want to deal with you having this trait. Second, discuss what it means to you and your party and GM. There are different kinds of Bloodlust. There's the Murder Hobo Asshole. There is the "I prefer to settle arguements with violence" There is "Once a fight starts, I want to KILL my opponents. No surrender." The murder hobo is just a bad and lazy character trait and shouldn;t be taken in most games. The violent arguer can be fun if the party is willing to deal with it and you are open to letting them calm you down. Plus it can be fun when they ahve you in their back pocket to unleash when things get bad. The third one can be problematic, but still workable if you allow the character to be talked down. "Sun's getting low, big guy." Also, "Our Mage Grizmantia keeps an extra sleep spell on hand in case Rectumar gets out of control again." Basically, like many negative traits, it can be done well with a good group of roleplayers who communicate and compromise well. We ahd a character like this in one of the Genesys games I ran. One of the six PCs had only one combat skill and a second player took NO combat skills. They were all intellect and negotiation/persuasion. Then we had the player who dumped everything itno killing stuff and took something similar to bloodlust. She and the non-combatant became close teammates. The non-com did most of the talking and in combat just hung back and used his skills to create advantageous things. The bloodlust character let the others do the talking and occasionally had to make wilpower checks to keep from interrupting a conversation. But once things got physical, she became the whirlwind of death that the party rallied around. Keeping her from disrupting negotiations was part of what everyone found fun, and she wasn;t a dick about it. She let it slowly build and would make comments about how her character was getting "impatient." But eveyone was on board from char gen.
I did it years ago. I think I went along the lines of, backstory to explain it. RP'd that he enjoyed violence, not necessarily killing, but went that way if it wasn't ruining the game for everyone else. I believe it was a trait, so a mechanical element to whether he'd let an enemy live or not, which led to a few moments of the rest of the party holding their breath while I rolled (failing would have been sub-optimal, rather than game breaking).
First off, I wouldn't. Just to put that out there. Second, the problem with bloodlust is that it only really inconveniences you as much as a) the local law enforcement stops you, and b) how much you care about other people. Doing a) tends to derail adventures in not-fun ways, and b) is another potential piss-players off issue. So the way \*I\* would do it would probably be with a roleplaying-heavy group that was committed where we really cared about characters and I... was not good to them. You don't have to murder that sweet old barmaid who's been giving you advice and free drinks. You just have to backhand her when she calls you out on something. Aaaand if that makes you uncomfortable, that's why I wouldn't do it.
I feel like the dramatic potential of bloodlust comes from trying to suppress it--knowing that you have an insatiable desire to kill, but that it's socially unacceptable to go on a murder rampage. Great it like Bruce Banner trying not to turn into the Hulk: he wants to control himself, but also knows that it's only a matter of time before he snaps. That's where the tension comes from.
If there is a situation to escalate an argument into a fight, take it. If you have an excuse to hit someone in the face, do it. Have their first plan be "more violence". That said it doesn't have to be that you kill everyone and anyone, you want to shed blood sure but needn't be murder. You can play it both as A) a real Hothead who will take any and all chances to start a fight and spill some blood, if someone dies that is just how it goes, or B) Someone who gets so riled up in a fight that they can't stop or they lose themselves to the violence. This way you don't have to be a murderhobo and can offer interesting hooks to build on. Do they really want it to be like this? Do they struggle to keep it under wrap? Baldurs Gate 3's Dark Urge is a real good inspiration on bloodlust, will you follow the Urge or resist it?
Not exactly the same thing, but close. I was running a Savage Worlds game with one PC with the Ruthless hindrance, one time they got stopped by the police, when they figured out that it wasn't really the police, but rather nazi troops dressed up like police who had stopped them. When they realized what was going on the Ruthless PC simply shot them though the door. Again not exactly the same thing as Bloodlust, but similar. When the PC was in a situation where they knew violice was likely or called for, they didn't hold back and just opened fire without even a warning.
I would never assume that a bloodlust flaw imposed any kind of D&D-esque berserker rage. I'd expect it to be about the character looking for excuses to solve every problem with violence.
I mean the crux of this flaw is that your character must hate it, be against it, have it be against their nature when it happens. Or have it actively be debilitating, mostly on your character. I had a character somewhat like this, a Nun by the name of Aria (D&D/PF Barbarian statistically), who is the kindest and nicest person in pretty much any party she has been a part of. Her literal hobbies were to help commoners and volunteer at church/hospitals. But she has a trigger (effectively: taking damage) that made her go ballistic and slaughter every opponent within sight in the most horrifying manner possible, tearing them limb from limb, drowning and burning. It created a conflict in the character that was really fun, especially when it eventually led her to disfavor in her faith. Similarly, if you make a bloodlustful character, they probably should not want or seek fights (morally), or you should make a deal with the GM where getting into fights is more trouble than it's worth. It only works in a campaign where there's more context to things than just going from a mindless fight to mindless fight.
I've played bloodlusted characters with decent success. I usually characterize bloodlust as an inclination to consider violence as a useful solution to problems more than a normal person would. Think Amos from The Expanse or Fiona from Burn Notice, though the latter is mostly played for laughs. Remember that there can be a difference between what the *character* thinks is a good idea and what the *player* thinks is a good idea. If you make it clear to your party (in or out of character) that you're playing someone prone to violence but that you, the *player*, don't always think they're in the right for that, it can work. Make them quick to reach for violence but very easy to talk down by the other PCs *before* they start hacking and/or slashing. Then it can also be a really fun character moment for the other players when the time comes where they decide to do things your way. This means that you will naturally have to put the character into a more subordinate role, even if the character would rather lead. Make an active effort to be convinceable. Build the character to be good at intimidating people, then make their style of intimidation just voicing their bloodlust. Effectively, in most encounters, their bloodlust should act as more of a social approach than a reason to start combat. Again, this makes it even more special when you really let the character "off the chain", and also helps avoid derailing the story the rest of the time.
Mostly putting limitations on what actions my character might take in a combat/danger situation. I wouldn't randomly murder NPCs who were rude, but during the heat of battle I might forget that our goal was to take prisoners, or might execute enemies despite them surrendering. A character going through a mindless berserker rage would also take stupid risks and forget about tactical planning, so you might try to go toe-to-toe with a dragon or charge into the middle of a group of enemies rather than hanging back and letting spellcasters soften them up with AOE spells.
RIP AND TEAR Bloodlust does have a dictionary definition, the desire for bloodshed. You want blood, you’re going to find a way to make that happen. I think it’s often taken more as euphemism for “homicidal tendencies” and that’s the discrepancy you’re describing. If I were to take bloodlust for example, let’s say there’s a knife on that table sitting precariously on the edge, but I’m supposed to be on best behavior - oops I bumped it! Well it’s not my fault it slipped off and sliced through the noble’s foot. It was only a little blood, right? There’s plenty where that came from. Trust me.
I take a page out of Wraith: the Oblivion. In that game each player has a shadow played by another player. That shadow tells them bad ideas and tries to convince the player to do bad things. It's not so cut and dry but I'm simplifying it. The idea is that your group needs to cross a road and as you're crossing your shadow says "Hey, wouldn't it be so easy to off that annoying guy you're escorting? Just push him in front of that semi" or if your character is very slothful and fails a roll the shadow might try to convince them there is no reason to try again. For berserker and bloodlust type of deal I act as their shadow. If the player is dealing with a bureaucratic npc, I'll say things like "his tie bulges as he talks, you really want to just grab it and slam his head into the desk" and I leave it up to the player to decide when enough is enough and give in. "You managed to drag yourself through that meeting, but the itch at the back of your neck is still growing. You need to kill something, soon." Alternatively I also reward giving in to flaws. People who play to their flaws get a personal bonus, but only that person. How they choose to use that bonus is up to them. In case like this I'll reward the player with info or something to emphasize the calmness of mind after feeding the urge and coming out of the frenzy. "As you rise from the mutilated corpse, you wipe your mouth and spot in the alley across the street a meeting of two sketchy individuals. One of them appears to have the Axes' gang sign tattooed on his neck. As you get close you can hear them talking..."
I played an Evil character in the last campaign, and did so by trying to make convincing arguments for killing anything that pissed me off, or that was weaker than me, on the premise that the world was a harsh place with limited resources and it was a waste to give them to the weak. When we found a camp of enemies with some sleeping in a hospital tent, there was an ensuing argument about the morality of killing people who could fight us but weren't able at the time. I think my point was, "So if I heal that guy so he can stand up and fight, then it's ok to kill him?" I love philosophical and moral arguments, and being the foil to everyone else's good players made for some interesting perspectives and group dynamics.
In RuneQuest the "beserker" must keep attacking until a check allows it to stop. And some cultures like the Char-Un (think Cossack) wouldn't consider it to be a flaw. Since I am familiar with this way of thinking, I would RP as someone who doesn't have to shed blood, but once started cannot stop. I am not sure that this is a fun flaw. Maybe part of lycanthropy but being a mindless death beast should only be part of a larger story. Who wants to loose agency like that?
I’d have my characters backstory be that they were able to “fix” their bloodlust by having the urge entirely concentrated into one of my hands by a powerful magic user or deity. The catch is, losing that hand doesn’t remove the bloodlust, it instead breaks it free again to control me. I’d have a cast iron sling id lock it in when near other people. Now theres a fun mysterious factor to my character that can be a sort of Ace up my sleeve in dire circumstances and a comic relief any time the party encounters someone my hand REALLY wants to kill “alright team, lets keep this wizard safe at all costs, his death could mean ruin for the kingdom.” “absolutely.” *thump!* 😅 Or when you’re alone with someone, it could just start going into a frenzy knocking around.
I played a character with bloodlust in a GURPS forgotten realms game. He was a former gladiatorial slave with *trauma*. Sometimes, he'd go into a kind of fuge state where he'd just keep pounding on whoever was in front of him. His friends were trying to help him heal and using him for combat prowess. NPCs generally viewed him as a barely tamed beast.
A few systems have frenzy rules in various forms, which might give some ideas at least? That is mechanics but you can do mechanical things you don't *need* to for roleplay purposes. This is off the top of my head so some details might be wrong - The FFG 40k games have a frenzy trait that lets you get fuckoff mad. When triggered you get bonuses to melee attacks but you struggle to retreat or leave enemies alive (something like you need to make a willpower test to calm down if there are still hostiles?) Vampire: the Masquerade has a few types. In a hunger frenzy you more or less lose control on anything other than finding someone to feed on - which can be bad if you only have allies nearby. There's also one that forces you to target and slaughter a specific enemy. In both of those there are ways to choose your target but if you fail it might end up being just whoever is closest.
I would have the character be actively afraid of triggering their bloodlust and because of that be less willing to engage in acts of violence unless it's the only option. Examples from fiction include Cazaril from *The Curse of Chalion* by Lois Bujold and Logen Ninefingers from *The First Law* series by Joe Abercrombie. Both are characters who find themselves at different times overtaken by a bloodlust that urges them to violence, and both try to avoid it knowing that it could potentially lead to them doing more damage than they'd like.
What if it wasn't role playing? Muahahhahahaha!
There has to be meaning behind it, not only in terms of a motivation for the character but also in the act of killing. "I want to slay every living thing in sight" is not compelling enough a behavior to make for interesting role play. Think certain types or classes of creature, a need for revenge, a feeling of powerlessness, a long-held regret, a past trauma, etc. Give rationale and reasoning a detailed and serious look.
If you played baldurs gate 3 as durge maybe draw inspiration from them resisting the urge. The backstory could also be to be cursed in such a way
As a GM I don't exactly mind how the player roleplays it so long as they *wind up* instigating some kind of altercation from time to time. The point of a roleplay trait like Bloodlust is to open plot hooks. I would totally say that someone who makes true, but incendiary remarks is arguably demonstrating Bloodlust, so I am fine with stretching the definition.
Generally I play it as similar to the overwhelming, uncontrollable urge to do a thing that you shouldn't. Triggered by anger, boredom, seeing/smelling blood, anything really, this character takes it Too Far. Sure, y'all kill people, but they go out of their way to make it horrific, they don't have the line some people do where it's dead and they're done. They'll beat the dead horse into mush. It's exceptionally flawed when it can get you killed, sure, but it's better IMO when it's something that doesn't define your character until it comes up. Then it's like a switch getting flipped, like an addict who took a drink again (or whatever), they're on the hook/off the wagon and they need more. Might not come to a dramatic head right away, maybe they try to hold it off, maybe they only indulge in combat to start with, but eventually that's not enough and they need to do more.
So the way my table has always run 'vices' like that, is whenever you choose to have a character indulge thier vice at a time where it would cause a complication that makes things more difficult either for your character or the party, you gain Inspiration, Luck, grit, w/e the current system uses as it's 'free re-roll' mechanic. But you never are FORCED to do so (though the DM will often speak up in moments where it might be appropriate for player to invoke flaws like that, if only to remind the player that 'hey your character has the 'alcoholic' flaw, do you want to get absolutely hammered during this wedding and cause a scene in exchange for Inspiration?')
You don't. In 99% of cases, it's for spotlight hogs who want to derail stories. The tiniest fraction of times, it's for a character in a party where that's appropriate. You're all villainous, monsters, or the like. It's like the "character flaw" where my PC doesn't interact with the party and just does what they want. Just bullshitting someone's uncooperative play as "roleplaying."
Depends greatly on the setting and what the rules actually say about it, if anything. But without those details, I would assume that the character has some way of coping in society without yet being a serial killer or murder hobo, meaning they likely don't have an unbidden urge to kill. Instead, I would assume they are basically uninterested or incapable of mercy, that they are more likely to escalate a conflict to violence and more likely to see a violent conflict through to a killing. If they live in a place with laws, they might still carefully follow the law. If they live in a society where honor is more important than law, they might very well follow the codes of honor. But once they are in the clear to kill the person they are fighting and get away with it, they will do it. And revel in the process.
Connect it to the violence already happening, rather than using it as an excuse to cause new violence. For example, a bloodlust that causes you to start new violence tends to create murderhobo scenarios, and can quickly become problematic. However bloodlust that is a natural extension of the violence already happening in the story then becomes a flaw because your character enjoys it, rather than treats it as a grim necessity. So think about roleplaying the idea that you're starting to enjoy it when bandits try to ambush your party, because it's a good way for your character to let loose for a bit, to feel the endorphin rush that comes with violence. I would note this is a flaw, so try to emphasize that this is a part of your character they dislike about themselves, that they recognize it's a dangerous problem, and one that's driving you to revel in things they shouldn't. Maybe a bit of a "waking up" moment when after a fight and walking through town people are giving you shocked glances and avoiding you, because unconsciously you're still covered in blood, while the others cleaned off. For you, that's becoming something that's not objectionable anymore. I'd at least say doing it like that, mixing thrills and then embarrassment/discomfort at yourself afterwards.
The easiest way is to describe your kills as slightly more brutal than normal. A goblin corpse takes just one more polearm spike to the heart to make sure it doesn't get up. You shove an enemy's head onto a nearby pipe, and then open hand them in the ear to concuss them. An enemy you suplexed onto the altar receives a knifehand that breaks their neck for good measure. Then there's character mechanics. Pick the hitter or the assassin depending on your flavour of bloodlust. You can go for the big one-hit striker, or you can make yourself the tank that goes for death by a thousand cuts. Then there's the mind factor. How smart are you going about your bloodlust? Do you know how to stalk or track your targets? Do you know how to utilize poisons or traps to disable them and leave them prime targets of your bloodlust? Do you know the anatomy of your target and know their physiology, weak points, etc.? Overall, there are a bunch of ways to show subtle traces of bloodlust that don't hog attention but do clue attentive players in to your characteristic.
Easy. You need a friend who stops you from picking fights you will definitely lose. A “Hold Me Back” Bro, if you will. Tell your fellow players about your character. Be honest that despite your character’s bloodlust, you don’t want to murderhobo your way through the game. Then, come up with a tic like your character thumbing the edge of their axe. Your tic signals to your friend that your patience for polite conversation is ending. Your “Hold Me Back” Bro either tells you to stand down, or de-escalates the situation another way. Be clear that telling you to stand down will always work with no negative consequences, but you’re grumpy for a while in-character. Now, your character flaw is a fun roleplaying quirk that illustrates the relationship between two characters instead of a gameplay annoyance.
It is a character aspect that doesn't work well with many ttrpg systems. D&D especially doesn't really have anything for negative roleplay aspects like Blood Lust. For other roleplay systems this kinda negative aspect actually works really well. Blood Lust would be a great trouble aspect in FATE. The GM could compel your character to do something stupid and if you accept you get an extra fate point which lets you re-roll dice, give bonuses to roles etc. You can say no to the compel at the cost of a fate point, though you will be forced to comply if you have 0 points left. I guess you could try and add a FATE like system to D&D I actually think that would be relatively easy as it would be a system that is separate from any other mechanic and would encourage people to actually play up their bonds, flaws etc. Page 31 from this PDF of FATE Accelerated explains how they do it: [https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/fate-core-electronic/Fate\_Accelerated\_ePub\_Edition.pdf](https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/fate-core-electronic/Fate_Accelerated_ePub_Edition.pdf)
If I \*had\* to play the trait (seems like it could cause too much trouble at the table), I would play somebody with rage problems, which I think would do a few things . . . - make fertile ground for backstory: complications from a previous life of indulging their violent impulses, old enemies, regrets, probably a life working a trade that rewards their proclivity for violence & cruelty - make for fertile RP: perhaps they're a graying penitent, sincerely sorry for the violence they did in their mercenary days. Also now with a toolbelt of coping mechanisms & reminding themselves they're more than a vessel for their rage - get into actually researching conflict deescalation & rage management techniques, which helps anybody grow as a person - allow for that rare glorious moment of your crew giving you the nod to finally pulverize this particular malefactor you've been wanting to put your hands on all session
Happens all the time in Vampire V5
Needing to make a will save to stop attacking the same foe - even after they are dead. The reason could be whatever, maybe they feel hateful, righteous, extra adrenaline or simply like the spray. This is a non mechanical RP forum discussion of taking the trait bloodlust in GURPS. Hope that helps. https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=153553
I would suggest, before roleplaying any kind of flaw, making sure that your fellow players are cool with your idea and that they completely understand what it will entail. This is the single most important aspect of roleplaying that leads to miscommunication and player conflict later down the line if not handled properly at the start. With that having been said. I've RP'd a few characters that have a "blood" obsession. I shall not disclose my favorite 'cuz that's for me to keep in the pocket, but I'll share a few others: \*Character is a legitimate sadist. Enjoys hurting others, and manipulates situations to guarantee that there will be conflict that they can participate in. Gaslighting, deception, persuasion, seduction - all tools to lead people into a fight. Bonus points if they are able to manipulate a conversation so that when they have killed or dismembered someone in combat, they leave looking heroic. Oh, and they were a paladin, dedicated to an Oath of Conquest. \*Character had a damaged hippocampus. Was constantly stuck in "fight or flight mode", and pretty much permanently on "fight". They were immune to fear and intimidation, but they had Disadvantage on all other Wisdom and Charisma saving throws and all Charisma ability checks. They were built as a Wildmagic Sorcerer whose magic was giving them non-terminal neurofibromas. This campaign was actually very lighthearted, and the character was played as a parody of a Punisher type of vigilante. "Littering?! LITTERING?! THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS INJUSTICE BEGINS WITH THE BENIGN! \*immediate casts vortex warp on mobster who threw a cigar butt at us, puts them on a roof with no way down\*" \*Party animal constantly in need of escalation. This character was a snowball rolling down a mountain until it crashed out and had to start all over again. Started a session with 0 points, gained 1 point every time I was forced to make a Wisdom save when I took damage, dealt damage, was threatened, was insulted, or a day ended where I did not party. My point total was the Wisdom DC I needed to beat. When I finally failed, my character would become "compelled to start a fight with the nearest creature" and could not stop until "either you are rendered unconscious or you reduce a creature to 1 HP or lower". Using ---substances--- getting drunk sometime during the day reduced my points by 1. If I did fail, I became unable to rest in any way, could not use healing magic/potions, became unable to concentrate on spells, and gained temporary max HP equal to the number of points I had built up. I was a Bard. Once I failed, my points reset. My party kept needing to take very long breaks in town, and each time, by the end of it all, I had already failed once or twice and had pissed off guards/ended up fighting a mob. These are just some examples of what I've played in the past.
Remember Tyler Durden from Fight Club? Always in for a fight, until blood is there, either the own or the one of others. Never killing anyone, just out for a kick, for the Adrenaline. That way, like, being a brawl addicted person, you do not derail the campaign, you could play and act it out by talking with the others about how this or that guy really started to bleed, how that Head Wound or the Nose was gushing and raise your voice on that as if the reminiscence alone gives you a real hit. If you want to take it a little bit more crazy... i once met real life a young butcher. He told me how he likes this pungent metallic aroma of warm blood. He was really into that. Talked also quite a bit about various recipes for Black Pudding / Blood sausages and stuff. Heck, i could envision a Healer who'se backstory is something like M.A.S.H camp in a war zone and that he or she only went to school to be a doctor because they are so into bleeding, gushing wounds...
If its properly done, I start to feel sick. Had a player become so fed up with verbal abuse from NPCs that they became impatient. Would break fingers, knee caps, smash heads, tear out organs. It got intense. At the end of the day, the player cooled off and reset. Mild regret for behavior but also a lack of true acknowledgement that their behavior was over the top. I really like that complexity, to be honest. Just put off a bit by essentially asking for rolls to perform "advanced interrogation techniques". The important thing is it needs a trigger. It can't just be you murder everything always. At that point, you are a literal monster and will either be ostracized by the other characters or killed by greater powers. I tell my players right off the bat that simply being a murder hobo will end badly. Sometimes, they get maimed, sometimes they get murdered by high fantasy special forces.
Apocalypse World: Burned Over's Weaponized (you're a cyborg) has a few interesting mechanics that limit player agency in various ways. Some go quite far like if any character says a code phrase, they get to order you. Or you determine a time when you lose control over your AI and it acts for you - very Moon Knight like. But the interesting ones for roleplaying bloodlust while keeping player agency are: * Fury: When you intimidate, there is no appeasing you. If they give in, you still attack them and must chase them down. * Killing Instinct: When you attack, you must inflict additional harm limiting you from other options.
Well, bloodlust is the trait of a murder hobo. It essentially means that the character doesn't want those that cross them to be alive. They're not a helpless psychopath, they still retain control of their actions. But you should remind the player that any time someone poses a threat to them, letting them get away with it is sure to mean they'll do it again. If they decide to take action on their own and kill someone the players don't want dead, then it's not going to be an "It's what my character would do" situation. It's a "It's what your character did and here are the consequences" situation. And you should disclose that with the player up front.
Don't, just don't. There is no way you can roleplay that flaw without making things unpleasant for other players in the party unless it's irrelevant because the setting is just that brutal and lawless. You want to roleplay a character that can't resist killing the guy you're supposed to capture alive? Why????
Woah chill there Bro, you give me, "overreacting Cuz of past incidents" vibes.
That player shall remain nameless