Reluctant Kiler variations: pulled punches, fright checks.

[Bruno]

Reluctant killer gives you penalties to hit "people". There's at least another two other ways that deep discomfort with actually hurting people can manifest: not being able to use your strength, or having to roll a fright check before you try (if you manage to make yourself try).

Pacifism: Totally floppy punches [-10*] (needs a way better name, not sure on the price.
So, personal anecdote time. I can't strike into a human-shaped target, ie I can't aim beyond the surface. That means I basically only ever deliver light taps, slap, and shoves, unless I screw up.
Even if they're wearing a face-obscuring saftey mask, and even that one time when I jumped them from behind and was volcanically angry (not proud of that incident, but I was 12 so yeah).
I can't even break a board if there's someone holding it; you brace the board out in front of you, and from my POV your face is on top of the board and *baf baf baf* I can't break it. My teacher clued in and offered me a chance to try in the rather less well braced position of one person holding the on either side. I was warned this is harder to break because of weak bracing, but I seized the opportunity, and I did it first try. The damn board wasn't "people" any more, it gets a foot through it.
It feels like I'm stuck with a -2 per-die damage penalty on melee attacks (don't know if that counts on thrown objects, my throwing sucks so I've never tried).
For usefulness in RPG adventure gaming, let's say it has a self-control rating, and you get a bonus under "Justifiable" circumstances (basically, the more it sounds like someone with Pacifism (Self-Defense Only) could do it, the more likely you can do it.

I probably have an abysmal self control-rating, but I'm not an adventurer and I'm fortunate live in a peaceful environment :thumbsup:

Phobia: Being violent [?*]
The other one is probably basically a phobia of being violent, and can be treated as such. I don't know if you have to make a fright check per fight or per target or per individual attack. Probably all three are valid, with different point costs.
Dramatically, there's the narrative of the conscripted soldier sent out to a real battlefield finally, and having a meltdown over having to actually shoot people. You get the best storytelling for this when the soldier is a sniper or other protected specialist, and thus has the luxury of sitting around not being murdered while they have hysterics, but I'm willing to bet This Is A Thing IRL.
In your standard narrative, they get over it when an ally is wounded or killed due to their inaction, and trade it in for Callous, Fanaticism, Intolerance (the enemy), and suchlike. Then a romantic interest helps them recover emotionally, cue happy ending. In a more realistic narrative, I'm betting some of these people don't get to quickly ditch it, they make a crap ton of fright checks, and collect disadvantage points like they're going out of style before the GM lets them trade the disad in, and their complimentary pile of fright-check induced disads is PTSD.

This isn't Post-Combat Shakes, because that lets you get into combat just fine, you only have your freak-out afterwards.

[Kalzazz]

Well, does it apply to say spells or guns?

If its just ST based attacks I would say more like -5 and not give it a self control roll

[Bruno]

It's pretty hard to "pull" a shot with a gun, although you can with spells to an extent by not charging them as much. An equivalent would be aiming for "less lethal" hit locations, which is voluntarily taking a skill penalty and you probably burn a few turns Aiming.
Or spend time switching your ammo to a less-lethal ammo, should you have any (or just only load less-lethal rounds, like shot shells with plastic pellets).

I have no anecdotal data one way or another. I've only ever held a pellet gun, and never even fired that at a paper target.

EDITED REPEATEDLY: So, the more I think about it, this is like a slightly-reduced Self-Defense-Only. You can start an altercation, but it's usually a dumb idea because you fight like a wiffle-bat. When you're using force, you basically follow the Self-Defense Only rules with a hard-coded damage penalty rather than a voluntarily adjusted one, and you can't escalate without a successful self control roll.

[Kalzazz]

I would need to see how you edit it to account for 'non ST based' ways of making things die before I can really comment to much

I have played plenty of characters who never once attempted a ST based attack in their entire numerous session spanning careers, and were so abysmal at ST based attacks that going from 'nigh non existent' to 'nigh non existent -2' damage would scarcely be noticeable

[DouglasCole]

I suspect that the guns-related version of this is a "flinch" reaction, where one closes the eyes and yanks the trigger. Effectively, it makes all "Aim" actions pointless. Sure, you go through the motions, and maybe even line up the shot properly, but when it comes time to shoot, you pull the weapon off target.

[Bruno]

The problem with soldiers air-firing instead of firing even approximately in the direction of the enemy comes to mind.

[sir_pudding]

Isn't that already what Reluctant Killer does?

[Kalzazz]

Reluctant Killer gives you -4 to hit, and if you kill someone nukes you with backlash

Honestly Reluctant Killer seems one of those off kilter disads to me . . . the only people I've seen take it are characters who couldn't hurt someone in direct combat even without the -4, because noone seems willing to risk the backlash for a measly -5

[cdru]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Reluctant Killer gives you -4 to hit, and if you kill someone nukes you with backlash

Honestly Reluctant Killer seems one of those off kilter disads to me . . . the only people I've seen take it are characters who couldn't hurt someone in direct combat even without the -4, because noone seems willing to risk the backlash for a measly -5

Not even cinematic pacifists with ability to (Somehow) never involuntarily cause death for their enemies?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Reluctant Killer gives you -4 to hit, and if you kill someone nukes you with backlash

Yes, I know. I'm saying that -4 is the thing that Doug and Bruno are talking about with "flinch" and "air shooting".

Honestly Reluctant Killer seems one of those off kilter disads to me . . . the only people I've seen take it are characters who couldn't hurt someone in direct combat even without the -4, because noone seems willing to risk the backlash for a measly -5

It may be required for characters with no military resocialization, who have never lived in a warzone, and who lack Callous.