Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No such thing as a non lethal attack.

There are attacks with no meaningful chance of death. It's just that, well, they don't have much a chance of being effective either, because humans aren't really designed to be harmlessly incapacitated.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There are attacks with no meaningful chance of death. It's just that, well, they don't have much a chance of being effective either, because humans aren't really designed to be harmlessly incapacitated.

I refuse to acknowledge tossing a d4 at someone's chest "an attack".

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There are attacks with no meaningful chance of death. It's just that, well, they don't have much a chance of being effective either, because humans aren't really designed to be harmlessly incapacitated.

That's untrue... we're harmlessly incapacitated on a daily basis - we just call it "going to sleep".

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I refuse to acknowledge tossing a d4 at someone's chest "an attack".

In an age where simply using words can be considered a "verbal attack", I'm pretty sure quite a few lawyers would disagree with you (and also claim you owe money cause you could have missed their chest and hit their eye!).

As for "non-lethal attacks", perception is highly biased due to advances in medical care. Most gunshots were fatal in previous eras because the doctors at the time weren't capable of stopping internal bleeding efficiently much less repairing (or replacing) damaged organs. In a society that has resurrection, cloning or instant healing via magic or technology, nothing would be considered a lethal attack and security forces might "shoot to kill" regardless of innocence because the damage could be easily repaired. By contrast, before the advent of medicine and treatment, a broken bone caused by what we now consider "non-lethal" weapons would have been just as deadly... it's hard to escape predators (or catch food if you're the predator) with a limp from a poorly-healed broken leg and a broken jaw could mean starvation.

Regardless of whether you believe it should be affected by the environment/societal views of the campaign (or even the PC if from a different one) one fact remains: a club is no less lethal than a knife in the hands of a trained user.

The whole point of this disadvantage is to be disadvantageous to the PC (or NPC) that possesses it... looking for ways to skirt the penalties goes against the point of the disadvantage. If someone feels the list of what is not considered lethal should be expanded... have them add an Enhancement/Limitation allowing them to target extremities while reducing the cost of the disadvantage... likewise if you wish to expand the list of lethal strikes, add one that increases the value.

Any modifications done directly on how to interpret the disadvantage should be balanced by making it just as disadvantageous (so if I were to rule someone could shoot a person in the extremities while suffering either a -2 or no penalty, I'd balance it by saying they couldn't use a blunt object anywhere but the extremities without a similar penalty - so if you can shoot a person in the foot you can't club them in head).

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No such thing as a non lethal attack. People are irritatingly easy to kill, sometimes. Other times they just won't stop living.

Well thats just not true for GURPS is it? There are an abundance of psychic powers, grappling moves, magic spells, weapons, even innate attacks with 1 point of crushing damage which CAN be used safely with effectively 0% chance of serious injury or death.

You would have more chance of killing someone with a critical fail on a vehicle skill roll.

The GURPS authors and playtesters were aware of this when pricing a -5 point disadvantage.

I can easily spend some points on wrestling and ST and go ham breaking bones. Thats ok for the disadvantage. That doesnt in any way violate the disavantage, but you will be safely incapacitated.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Barghaest

Any modifications done directly on how to interpret the disadvantage should be balanced by making it just as disadvantageous (so if I were to rule someone could shoot a person in the extremities while suffering either a -2 or no penalty, I'd balance it by saying they couldn't use a blunt object anywhere but the extremities without a similar penalty - so if you can shoot a person in the foot you can't club them in head).

I wouldn't let a Reluctant Killer club someone in the head willy-nilly either, not w/o taking the penalty. I guess I'm strict that way.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I wouldn't let a Reluctant Killer club someone in the head willy-nilly either, not w/o taking the penalty. I guess I'm strict that way.

Personally, I'd allow a Reluctant Killer to target locations that are commonly believed to be less/non-lethal at -2 rather than -4. This would mean attacks to limbs and extremities in general, although fist loads to the Skull and Neck (but only from behind for the latter!) would count as well.

A character who knows better would take Pacifism: Reluctant Killer (Knows Anatomy +20%) [-6], or even Pacifism: Reluctant Killer (One Punch Can Kill +60%) [-8] if you consider unarmed strikes to be lethal. A character who has strange beliefs about what is and isn't "lethal" might qualify for Pacifism: Reluctant Killer (Deluded -40%) [-3] or similar. If a character manages to kill a target using a "nonlethal" method, he must make an immediate Fright Check (as I outlined above), suffers as for Cannot Kill, and must immediately upgrade his Pacifism: Reluctant Killer to something more appropriate (with no compensation). Such an event is also cause to pick up Combat Paralysis!

[Flyndaran]

I guess the best answer for OP's question is, "it depends on setting."
How ignorant of human physiology and combat in general is the character?
How dangerous is combat in the setting?

I tend to assume realism unless specifically told what cinematic genre posters play.
But GURPS covers all genres, so we need more clarification.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I guess the best answer for OP's question is, "it depends on setting."
How ignorant of human physiology and combat in general is the character?
How dangerous is combat in the setting?

I tend to assume realism unless specifically told what cinematic genre posters play.
But GURPS covers all genres, so we need more clarification.

If it was impossible for Reluctant Killer to ever make an attack without the penalty, then I think the description would be phrased differently.

[Barghaest]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If a character manages to kill a target using a "nonlethal" method, he must make an immediate Fright Check (as I outlined above), suffers as for Cannot Kill, and must immediately upgrade his Pacifism: Reluctant Killer to something more appropriate (with no compensation). Such an event is also cause to pick up Combat Paralysis!

I'd leave the forcing of the person to upgrade to the results of the Fright Check... if it mentions adding disadvantages, then you could shift but automatically forcing this on a player for a fluke of the dice (where it isn't already a part of the mechanics or the player wasn't informed of the risk before choosing the Disadvantage) is unfair... the mechanics already cover the effect of killing someone (regardless of doing so with a lethal attack at a penalty or a non-lethal attack with a lucky shot).

I can support the use of a Fright Check for a non-lethal attack causing someone's death (with appropriate modifiers based on the combat familiarity and physiological knowledge of the PC, as a veteran fighter or trained medical professional would be more aware of the risks). Pacifism: Reluctant Killer doesn't mean you can't kill, it means you'd prefer to not do so and thus restrict your attacks to those that minimize risk of death (there's always some risk of death even from something as simple as walking outside). That's why it penalizes lethal attacks... and the Disadvantage (after further review) doesn't specifically state a penalty when using a specific weapon (knife or gun) it specifies using a lethal attack. So it could be easily interpreted to allow someone to use a knife in a non-lethal manner with no penalty (stabbing someone's hand) while disallowing someone to swing a baseball bat at someone's head without penalty. And I'd say that leaves whether it would allow called shots that the PC believes aren't lethal to the game setting and GM (yes, I'm reversing my stance on this somewhat after careful consideration... I'd still disallow PCs to game around this with impunity by having nearby bystanders informing them of the risks "You could have killed him!" and definitely causing a Fright Check at penalty if their ignorance is proven by causing a death with an attack like this). I'd personally penalize any attack with a wounding modifier (cutting/impaling) or a high base damage (most firearms or heavy melee weapons) or any Called Shots that gives damage multipliers (Neck, Brain, Vitals, Eye) or any attack that is meant to be lethal (Damaging Choke Holds, Neck Snap) with intent as a modifying factor (stabbing someone in the hand with a knife would be at no additional penalty beyond target location while swinging a katana at their arm would be -2 in addition to Called Shot penalty because the shock/blood loss could cause death but generally won't in a modern setting).

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Personally, I'd allow a Reluctant Killer to target locations that are commonly believed to be less/non-lethal at -2 rather than -4. This would mean attacks to limbs and extremities in general, although fist loads to the Skull and Neck (but only from behind for the latter!) would count as well.

I would only allow that if they had no combat skills. If they have no combat skills, they may not know that hitting someone in the head can be dangerous; but if they have any combat skills, then they've been suitably trained to know what's dangerous and what isn't.

I would not give any modifications to Reluctant Killer to alter that.