Reluctant Killer and Grenades

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by WaterAndWindSpirit

I'd apply it only if he can see people in the trench. Consciously, they know there are people there, but they don't *see* them and I'd count that the same as attacking a set of coordinates on the map for an artillery crew. I'd also give no penalty to someone with Pacifism: Reluctant Killer to fire back at someone camouflaged enough that only the muzzle flash is visible, but in both cases if said pacifist later moves there and see the dead body/bodies they'd be hit full force with the nervous breakdown.

Yes, the example I was replying to did indeed contain the line "a trench that he can see is filled with recognisable people"

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Eh, he's aiming an area of effect weapon at an area which contains a person. That's using a lethal weapon against a person. I'd apply the penalty.

If he can see a person in the area he's aiming at regardless of weapon, then I agree. But if he only intellectually knows without any direct sensory knowledge that a person is there, then it's not a problem for reluctant killer, IMO.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If he can see a person in the area he's aiming at regardless of weapon, then I agree. But if he only intellectually knows without any direct sensory knowledge that a person is there, then it's not a problem for reluctant killer, IMO.

Ok, that's two people now who fail to realise that the specific example in this thread of discussion, i.e. the post that led to the post which my post was in reply to, makes this explicit:

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Yeah, that's basically the question. Can a Reluctant Killer aim and make an unpenalized roll to throw an offensive grenade into a trench that he can see is filled with recognizable people? And the answer appears to be no, which is reasonable.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Yeah, that's basically the question. Can a Reluctant Killer aim and make an unpenalized roll to throw an offensive grenade into a trench that he can see is filled with recognizable people? And the answer appears to be no, which is reasonable.

Just to be pedantic, he'll very much also suffer the penalty if he throws a defensive grenade into the trench. Concussion grenades (only dealing cr exp, with any fragmentation being incidental) are what are called "offensive grenades," because you can throw them further than their effective casualty radius. Fragmentation grenades (dealing cr exp and cutting fragmentation) are often "defensive grenades," because you typically can't throw them further than their effective casualty radius, meaning you need to throw them from cover (from a defensive position). There are offensive fragmentation grenades, designed to have a small enough effective casualty radius that you can use them without cover (the modern M67 is an example); note every video game ever* only has offensive grenades. Humorously, while High Tech also mentions this distinction, all of its fragmentation grenades apparently fall under the category of offensive, as they can be thrown further than their effective radius (the closest to defensive is the Mills, which historically I believe was a defensive grenade; an ST 10 character can throw that 25 yards, but the fragmentation can only affect up to 10 yards away). It's a quirk of the fragmentation rules.

*If anyone knows of one that actually has defensive grenades, let me know.

[Kalzazz]

I would consider throwing a grenade into a trench (or a bunker) to fall under the category as attacking a vehicle, even an occupied one

If I can throw a grenade into a tank or truck I can throw it into a trench

Once the enemies have gone and put a non human fighting wrapper around themselves you can aim for the wrapper


So no. I didn't misread the opening, I understand fine he can see the people. The disadvantage doesn't specify 'occupied vehicles but only if you can't see the occupants'

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

The disadvantage doesn't specify 'occupied vehicles but only if you can't see the occupants'

I can see the text going either way, but I feel that actually seeing the driver's face (or that of a passenger) would cause the penalty. The idea in the text is that you're attacking the vehicle, not the people (the people get hurt as a side effect). If you decide you won't suffer the penalty for seeing people when attacking the vehicle they are in, you could extrapolate from that to justify no penalty for throwing a grenade into a crowd of civilians, so long as you were aiming at a hex (which is a chunk of ground, and not a person) rather than a person.

[Kalzazz]

Yeah, I'm not sure about whether I'd allow throwing it at a hex, that is why I said maybe in my first reply

But after the op clarified was discussing trenches? No hesitation I'd allow that as a DM

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Eh, he's aiming an area of effect weapon at an area which contains a person. That's using a lethal weapon against a person. I'd apply the penalty.

That would be Vow, or CoH. As I understand it Pacifism is really a type of Compulsive Behavior. A person can understand intellectually that he has killed a target just as much when he has killed it abstractly but have fewer inhibitions. In fact that was shown in World War Two when the Western Allies did plenty of terror bombing but comparatively little face to face atrocity. The customs of war as understood at the time were part of it, but part of it was simply that it was easier.

[mlangsdorf]

To the extent that P:RK is a Compulsion, it's a compulsion to not use lethal force against people when you can see their faces. Throwing a grenade into at a visibly occupied trench is using lethal force against people when you can see their faces.

I get that P:RK lets use fire artillery at a map co-ordinate, perform carpet bombing, or shoot a LAW at a tank without penalties (and generally without repercussions unless you're brought face to face with your victims). The trench question is on the border between the two cases which is why I'm bringing it up.

Obviously, someone with P:RK can throw a grenade through the slits in a trench or throw a grenade into an apparently unoccupied trench without penalty. And there's a strong argument that they are penalizing when trying to throw a grenade into the middle of a bunch of enemy troops in the open. I'm still not sure about the occupied trench.

[Ulzgoroth]

I'd give a definite yes on penalty for fragging people in a trench. There's simply no question that it is a "deadly attack against an obvious person".

The only counterargument seems to rely on extrapolating from "You have no penalty to attack a vehicle (even an occupied one)". Which, to be fair, does pose a bit of a problem taken at face value - a motorcycle with rider, open-topped automobile, or vehicle with a bunch of guys clinging to the outside fit that description as unpenalized targets despite being blatant examples (unless you carefully pick your targets) of attacking obvious persons. My solution to that is to conclude that covers firing into the walls of vehicular compartments you can't see into regardless whether they contain people, and maybe generally firing at distant vehicles with visible exposed crew using weapons that can't meaningfully target or avoid individuals (age of sail naval gunnery, say), but not firing on exposed or windowed crew positions that you can see people in. That's an attempt to rationalize the contradictory text, really, but considering that the alternative would imply that mounting a motorcycle makes somebody completely fair game...