Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

[Jinumon]

So, I had a question regarding Pacifism: Reluctant Killer.

The disadvantage says you are psychologically unprepared to kill people, and take a penalty whenever you make a lethal attack against someone. It then goes on to list attacks with knives and guns as lethal attacks.

But my question regards potentially nonlethal attacks made with lethal weapons. For example, I myself have never been in a kill or be killed situation, and wouldn't be surprised if I have Reluctant Killer. However, I don't think I would have a problem firing at someone's feet, or stabbing them in the leg if they were a serious threat, because, in my mind, those attacks aren't lethal.

In short, can a person with Reluctant Killer avoid the penalty to attack if they specifically target extremities and other non-vital body locations?

[Nereidalbel]

If you reasonably believe it won't kill them, then no penalty for you. This applies to tazers, mace, the lower leg, and smacking somebody upside the head with the flat of a blade.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

If you reasonably believe it won't kill them,

I would say that a character whose knowledge of gunshot wounds comes from Hollywood, can shoot people in the shoulder or leg or whatever, because they "know" that being shot there is just a "flesh wound". At least for the first fire fight.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

I would say that a character whose knowledge of gunshot wounds comes from Hollywood, can shoot people in the shoulder or leg or whatever, because they "know" that being shot there is just a "flesh wound". At least for the first fire fight.

Shoulder injuries hurt, but they really aren't fatal (assuming no infection). I'd still stick to "Screw the statistics, tazers and rubber bullets don't kill!" working for this.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Jinumon

In short, can a person with Reluctant Killer avoid the penalty to attack if they specifically target extremities and other non-vital body locations?

The text of the disadvantage lists things that would be considered deadly attacks, which have to do with the weapon type. I don't see a reason to assume that a Reluctant Killer can avoid the penalty because they think that their skill changes the attack to non-deadly.

[Last Pawn]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

The text of the disadvantage lists things that would be considered deadly attacks, which have to do with the weapon type. I don't see a reason to assume that a Reluctant Killer can avoid the penalty because they think that their skill changes the attack to non-deadly.

They're not thinking about their skill, they're thinking that shooting someone in the leg couldn't possibly be lethal and thus it's a great way to take someone out of the fight without killing. I believe that this is one of the reasons people in the military and police are taught to aim at center of mass. If they thought they could disable someone reliably without the risk of killing their target many would take that chance despite the difficulty of making the shot. You could consider it a Quirk level delusion of the untrained fighter.

As a different point, I think that given the optional nature of the hit locations the text for reluctant killer kind of assumes hat all attacks will be at the center of mass. If that's true then it makes perfect sense to deal solely with the nature of the attack and not the matter of location.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Shoulder injuries hurt, but they really aren't fatal (assuming no infection). I'd still stick to "Screw the statistics, tazers and rubber bullets don't kill!" working for this.

There are arteries in the shoulder. It's entirely possible to get shot in the shoulder and bleed out rapidly, which is the usual definition of "fatal."

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Last Pawn

As a different point, I think that given the optional nature of the hit locations the text for reluctant killer kind of assumes hat all attacks will be at the center of mass. If that's true then it makes perfect sense to deal solely with the nature of the attack and not the matter of location.

That sounds reasonable to me.

In general, I'd say this is a GM's call. E.g. if you're using the bleeding rules, I'd say no to all gun and knife attacks. If not, then I'd allow them to be used to attack arms and legs.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

That sounds reasonable to me.

In general, I'd say this is a GM's call. E.g. if you're using the bleeding rules, I'd say no to all gun and knife attacks. If not, then I'd allow them to be used to attack arms and legs.

Note that head and neck blows are right out as well when using a regular weapon. Also note that using bare fists for most people is not considered a "lethal weapon".

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

There are arteries in the shoulder. It's entirely possible to get shot in the shoulder and bleed out rapidly, which is the usual definition of "fatal."

Yes, but the common man's knowledge of what is fatal or dangerous is skewed by Hollywood and even cartoons.

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Note that head and neck blows are right out as well when using a regular weapon. Also note that using bare fists for most people is not considered a "lethal weapon".

I'd say neck and head are taboo for sharp weapons, but many people think a blunt object to the back of the neck or head will result in a knockout instead of death.