Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2014, 10:47 PM   #11
Barghaest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

So, you're wondering if someone's ignorance of anatomy could affect their ability to use otherwise lethal weapons? As a GM, I'd consider this a Munchkin move by a player trying to bypass their disadvantage and still make it receive the penalty unless it can be justified by them making another skill (say Physiology to know where they could safely stab/shoot someone - often seen scenes akin to this in cinema where an otherwise pacifistic doctor stabs someone to incapacitate them because they know they missed major arteries/organs) even then it'd require the -2 used when you can't see the attacker's face, cause there's always the risk of the would still being fatal (opponent could be a hemophiliac or wound could become infected or the shock could trigger a heart attack).

If you let someone FAIL a roll to similar ignorance into thinking that location was safe (say shoulder or upper leg) they'd still have a -2 (because they might be wrong or afraid they might miss) and once someone explains to them the true risks they'd suffer the penalty as if they had killed someone (morose for so many days) because their ignorance caused them to take a huge risk.

I'd never allow someone to fully disregard the penalty (even when striking with the flat of a blade) because there's always the risk of messing up (the opponent or blade might move and it'd actually cut instead of being blunt) and that little bit of doubt and hesitation would impair their ability to use an otherwise lethal weapon.
Barghaest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 11:36 PM   #12
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

This would only work a few times, however. One slip up due to a bad roll (hit wrong target, roll random hit location) or failure of knowledge (shooting him in the leg opens the femoral artery) and I'll be wanting some serious roleplaying. To the point of Self Control rolls to use any weapon that isn't obviously and completely non-lethal.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 11:44 PM   #13
Last Pawn
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between.
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Don't forget that someone with Reluctant Killer who does end up killing someone recognizable as a person gets hit with the same penalties as someone with Cannot Kill:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Characters, page 148
...you immediately suffer a nervous breakdown. Roll 3d and be totally morose and useless (roleplay it!) for that many days. During this time, you must make a Will roll to offer any sort of violence toward anyone, for any reason.
__________________
Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane.
Philip K. Dick, Valis
Last Pawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2014, 11:55 PM   #14
lachimba
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barghaest View Post
So, you're wondering if someone's ignorance of anatomy could affect their ability to use otherwise lethal weapons? As a GM, I'd consider this a Munchkin move by a player trying to bypass their disadvantage and still make it receive the penalty unless it can be justified by them making another skill (say Physiology to know where they could safely stab/shoot someone - often seen scenes akin to this in cinema where an otherwise pacifistic doctor stabs someone to incapacitate them because they know they missed major arteries/organs) even then it'd require the -2 used when you can't see the attacker's face, cause there's always the risk of the would still being fatal (opponent could be a hemophiliac or wound could become infected or the shock could trigger a heart attack).

I think it depends on campaign rules. In a cinematic game where the heroes can KO people without killing them then go for your life. You still give up intentionally killing people, but saucepan over the head thats ok regardless of its actual risk in real life.

I would say the terminator aquired pacifism cant kill in T2. Its a factor in that movie (campaign) world that people can be shot in the legs with 'no risk' of death. And that's a disavantage worth more than reluctant killer.

Batman in many iterations is capable of quite over the top violence, but still has a variation on pacifism despite the risk of throwing battarangs into people's bodies.

Many victims (PCs) in horror movies (campaigns) probably have some version of pacifism which is why they knockout or even wound their attackers but rarely set out to kill or be killed.
In a brutally realistic world where the PC has a point or 2 in medicine or gun perhaps they should be aware of the consequences and unable to take the chance.

Last edited by lachimba; 03-17-2014 at 12:06 AM.
lachimba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 01:19 AM   #15
Barghaest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Quote:
Originally Posted by lachimba View Post
Batman in many iterations is capable of quite over the top violence, but still has a variation on pacifism despite the risk of throwing battarangs into people's bodies.
Good point; however, one could argue Batman has more of a Code of Honor than Pacifism: Cannot Kill (much akin to Dexter's code to not harm innocents - which varies greatly from Pacifism: Cannot Harm Innocents)... in many stories (and often in movies) Batman has no issues leaving a person in a deadly situation (the whole KGBeast graphic novel where he actually LOCKED him inside a room in the depths of the sewers where he would likely die of starvation/dehydration is a prime example).

Batman usually has the tools and knowledge to overcome "me or them" situations without actually killing an opponent but quite often he sets up the situation where a person might die (the first movie of the Bale reboot he's the one who disabled the controls before abandoning the train leaving his nemesis to die... in the second movie he actually took a life right after his speech about not being willing to do so). And then there's the whole fact that he's actually responsible for any deaths caused by villains such as the Joker simply because he wasn't willing to kill them when he had to opportunity (instead just delivering him into the hands of people who can't truly contain him to prevent future escapades).

Quote:
Originally Posted by lachimba View Post
In a brutally realistic world where the PC has a point or 2 in medicine or gun perhaps they should be aware of the consequences and unable to take the chance.
Depending on their own confidence that might make them more dangerous since they might be willing to make risky attacks relying in their knowledge to make it less likely to be fatal (such as stabbing someone in the abdomen or torso knowing they'll miss major organs and can prevent most forseen complications so the victim will live).

Quote:
Originally Posted by lachimba View Post
I think it depends on campaign rules. In a cinematic game where the heroes can KO people without killing them then go for your life. You still give up intentionally killing people, but saucepan over the head thats ok regardless of its actual risk in real life.
In a game where violence carries less impact (or is taken to an extreme like cartoon violence) as a GM I'd reduce the value (or outright disallow) most forms of Pacifism... the modifications to game rules themselves minimize the impact of this disadvantage making it less of one... unless you enforce the penalties regardless of actual lethality of the attacks (-4 to hit even though a gun/knife won't usually kill) making it mainly a skill penalty over an RP mechanic.

Last edited by Barghaest; 03-17-2014 at 01:44 AM.
Barghaest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 01:38 AM   #16
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinumon View Post
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?
I'd say no - there's always the chance you'll miss or strike an artery, and JSYK stabbing someone in the leg can be fatal very, very easily. Shooting someone in the feet isn't as likely to be fatal, but that doesn't mean you'll actually hit the feet and only the feet; if you miss and hit the thigh you're back to 'fatal' pretty quickly.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 02:44 AM   #17
Last Pawn
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between.
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

I think people are getting too hung up on the fact that there's a chance attacks to the limbs/extremities might be fatal. After all, Reluctant Kill allows you to call in a mortar strike and blow up a car, even if the location/vehicle is known to be occupied. The penalty for making a deadly attack is -4 "against an obvious person whose face is visible to you" and "you cannot aim." Simply obscuring the face of your target "due to a mask, darkness, or distance, or because you attacked from behind" reduces the penalty to -2, unless you're in close combat. I put the extra emphasis on "because you attacked from behind" because it seems clear that this is a choice that can be made by the player/character. I'd suggest that making a potentially deadly attack against what the character genuinely believes to be a safe location, i.e.: the limbs and extremities, would be similar in scope to attacking from behind and warrant the -2 penalty rather than the full -4.
__________________
Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane.
Philip K. Dick, Valis
Last Pawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 05:51 AM   #18
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

By way of in universe example:

Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 07:30 AM   #19
DangerousThing
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
By way of in universe example:

Zoë: Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.
Yes, but Book was extremely well trained, and I suspect did not have the Reluctant Killer disadvantage.
__________________
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Warning: Invertebrate Punnster - Spinelessly Unable to Resist a Pun
Dangerous Thoughts, my blog about GURPS and life.
DangerousThing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 08:28 AM   #20
Eukie
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Default Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Last Pawn View Post
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.
Not all militaries and police forces train for lethal center-of-mass shots as the sine qua non of firearms combat. There are legitimate concerns with the practice, but some organizations like the Norwegian army, Danish police, Russian GRU Spetsnaz and, if I don't remember wrong, the Bundeswehr, do or did teach and practice aiming for the legs with rifles and pistols as a way to shoot people with non-fatal intentions.
Eukie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
basic set, character, disadvantage, pacifism, realism

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.