03-16-2014, 10:47 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
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. |
03-16-2014, 11:36 PM | #12 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
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. |
03-16-2014, 11:44 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between.
|
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:
__________________
Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane. Philip K. Dick, Valis |
|
03-16-2014, 11:55 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney
|
Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots
Quote:
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. |
|
03-17-2014, 01:19 AM | #15 | ||
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
03-17-2014, 01:38 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots
Quote:
|
|
03-17-2014, 02:44 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between.
|
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 |
03-17-2014, 05:51 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
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. |
03-17-2014, 07:30 AM | #19 |
Join Date: Mar 2013
|
Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots
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. |
03-17-2014, 08:28 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Dec 2013
|
Re: Reluctant Killer and Called Shots
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
basic set, character, disadvantage, pacifism, realism |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|