Reluctant Killer and Called Shots

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Jinumon

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.

[Last Pawn]

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.

[The Colonel]

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.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

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.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

Yes, but Book was extremely well trained, and I suspect did not have the Reluctant Killer disadvantage.

I was sort of assuming that Book had that disadvantage - or at least some similar disadvantage based on his faith.