Reluctant Kiler variations: pulled punches, fright checks.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Isn't that already what Reluctant Killer does?

Might be. Can you use Aim?

[Kalzazz]

If its required then its required and I don't care on its points

If its not required, then it seems dubious, as I have never, ever seen someone take it and keep it and have the -4 ever come up. The only people who've taken it never intended to ever directly attack humans anyway

I saw an imbuement using archer take it once, in their first fight killed domeone with a FP arrow, was like 'Whaaaat?!', discussed it with the DM and swapped for phobia dragons

Now, a hypothetical '-2 per die damage vs people' disadvantage

Its basically some kind of anti higher purpose

I could see that fitting some characters who actually woukd interact with it . . . Sir Hero or such might well fight with true full power against orks and dragons and golems, but can't draw himself to his full lusty swings against his fellow man? I could see that

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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

That would be going very far even if you buy into the assumption that most people have Reluctant Killer.

Having the Callous disadvantage means having a rather extreme mentality. It means that you don't care about the emotions of anyone else. Not even close family members. It also means that you are bad at hiding that, since you get large skill penalties for many tasks.

It is worth noting that the Reluctant Killer disadvantage itself is also a rather extreme aversion to killing. Many people who are reluctant to kill are able to overcome (or at least reduce) the reluctance when very angry, very afraid or with a sufficient effort of will.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Might be. Can you use Aim?

"you are at -4 to hit and may not Aim." p. B148

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

If its not required, then it seems dubious, as I have never, ever seen someone take it and keep it and have the -4 ever come up. The only people who've taken it never intended to ever directly attack humans anyway

Yes, that's why it's assumed that PCs don't have it. It's not really an adventure fiction trait.

If you were running a game about regular folks, it probably ought to be more common.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Having the Callous disadvantage means having a rather extreme mentality. It means that you don't care about the emotions of anyone else. Not even close family members. It also means that you are unable to hide that well since you get large skill penalties for many tasks.

I don't what other trait models a sociopath. If you have a better one, use that.

It is worth noting that the Reluctant Killer disadvantage itself is also a rather extreme aversion to killing. Many people who are reluctant to kill are able to overcome (or at least reduce) the reluctance when very angry, very afraid or with a sufficient effort of will.

I'd say that means they are buying off the trait, but YMMV.

It may be only strongly encouraged rather than required. Whatever. That's not really relevant. The point is that it exists, not for action heroes that kill without flinching, but for more realistic people who are adverse to killing.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Having the Callous disadvantage means having a rather extreme mentality. It means that you don't care about the emotions of anyone else. Not even close family members. It also means that you are bad at hiding that, since you get large skill penalties for many tasks.

I think you overstate the penalties and obviousness. For the most part, it only applies to social interaction with "Victims", and those you are trying to teach or help.

As an example, Sherlock Holmes in 'Sherlock' has Callous. This doesn't hamper him from interacting with strangers, analyzing the crap out of them, manipulating them in twisted ways, and moving on with his life. He understands emotions -- in some ways exceptionally well. He even cares about them ... but in a cold, analytical way.

It doesn't even prevent him from being one of the "good guys".

What it does is make personal relationships strained and leave a trail of offended people behind him.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'd say that means they are buying off the trait, but YMMV.

Buying of the disadvantage does not work as an explanation for the cases when the reluctance to kill is retained after the event in question has passed.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think you overstate the penalties and obviousness. For the most part, it only applies to social interaction with "Victims", and those you are trying to teach or help.

As an example, Sherlock Holmes in 'Sherlock' has Callous. This doesn't hamper him from interacting with strangers, analyzing the crap out of them, manipulating them in twisted ways, and moving on with his life. He understands emotions -- in some ways exceptionally well. He even cares about them ... but in a cold, analytical way.

It doesn't even prevent him from being one of the "good guys".

What it does is make personal relationships strained and leave a trail of offended people behind him.

It is of course not obvious when Callous does not apply, but when it does the effect is quite large. A -3 penalty is as large as the difference between someone with average IQ and someone with exceptional IQ. It is not the case that they are bad at teaching etc. in general, they don't have any penalties if they are teaching someone for something like scientific research. They just get those penalties when trying to help others.

Technically the description of Callous in the Basic Set says that you don't care about the feelings of others if you have that disadvantage. It is true however that such a minor difference does not matter much if you have the same penalties (though I'm not sure if that applies to Sherlock. I seem to recall some other character reacting better to him after realizing that he cares about them in his own way).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Buying of the disadvantage does not work as an explanation for the cases when the reluctance to kill is retained after the event in question has passed.

• Not Reluctant Killer (One use x1/5) [1] as an impulse buy.
• Reluctant Killer (Not when Berserk) or Reluctant Killer (Not when own or dependent life is threatened) and so on as Extremely Limited Disadvantage Quirks

It is true however that such a minor difference does not matter much if you have the same penalties (though I'm not sure if that applies to Sherlock. I seem to recall some other character reacting better to him after realizing that he cares about them in his own way).

One of the themes of Sherlock is applying contemporary psychology to Doyle's characters, especially with Sherlock's high functioning sociopathy and Watson's PTSD. Callous does seem to be the best GURPS trait for this version of Holmes, to me, but YMMV.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

...
One of the themes of Sherlock is applying contemporary psychology to Doyle's characters, especially with Sherlock's high functioning sociopathy and Watson's PTSD. Callous does seem to be the best GURPS trait for this version of Holmes, to me, but YMMV.

It is odd when we try to use modern real world psychology on purely fictional characters made by people that don't know what may be unrealistic combinations of personality traits.
And we mustn't forget that lack of empathy does not mean presence of sadism, cruelty, or anything bad what so ever. Honor, and personal ethics can result in far more moral behavior than relying on pure instinctive empathy.