View Full Version : DSP evaluation for a new GM friend of mine.

8 August 2002, 07:46 PM
I have a friend who was GM for a little game he made up. One of our jedi (who is anal about the force try to be all goodi jedi all the time) was fighting a guy who had disarmed him. The guy getsknocked down and the jedi uses move object to get his Saber then puts it on teh guys back and turns it on.

Our GM said "well, ya killed him. and you get a DS point" this kinda made him upset. (his first one) HE said somethign about how obi-wan killed the creature in EPII like that and he did not get a DSP. Though that ended when I ask how he knew that.

I thought the point was justified. Seemed like that was a bit aggresive and maybe some anger. I had given some to a guy for acts like that. I just thught I would se what other GM's think about his call.

Kas'ir Faywind
8 August 2002, 07:53 PM
He was knockdown and helpless (not by game terms but as in he had no way to fight back)? If so then yes he could have just made him a prisoner/help him redeem his evil deeds. If he had a weapon thats where the debate comes in and its one of those "you had to be there"

8 August 2002, 07:56 PM
Oh well I guess I should add that the guy was a Martial arts expert so had no weapons.

Kas'ir Faywind
8 August 2002, 08:08 PM
Was he still awake and active and just prone?

It was pretty much a "low blow" form what you have described and he probably should get a DSP.

Oh and btw hit the player really hard for caring about getting one DSP. He isnt playing a paladin where he gets banned form the order over one minute thing. Having at least 1 DSP to me shows the player is playing someone right, we all let our emotions get to us right sometimes?

8 August 2002, 08:18 PM
His attack deserved a DSP if the PC was really into his "honorable" sort of character he would have gotten his weapon back and stood "en garde" ready to fight again while the opponent picked himself back-up. All the while trying to get the guy to "stop this useless conflict" :p

At least the PC didn't have to do it so cruelly. If there was another option (i.e. flick the saber on and just downard thrust) that would have been more humane then DSP is a definate option for the GM (also considering PC mentality at the time)

Sometimes players just need to kick and scream from time to time. Let them, but outline your reasons and justifications and uphold them constantly (that's the hard part). It's a judgment call, he may not like but give the player time and distance from the situation, in the end they'll probably agree with the GM.

8 August 2002, 09:36 PM
I'm going to go against the crowd and say NO DSP. The following is my reasoning:

First off, the opponent was a martial arts expert, therefore as long as he is awake and coherent, he is a potential threat.

Second, I'm guessing this action took place immediately after some actions where the Jedi was getting beat up...otherwise the Jedi probably wouldn't have been "retrieving" his lightsaber by using the Force and the opponent wouldn't have been knocked prone.

Third, the action of using the Force wasn't directly involved in the killing, only in the acquisition of a tool to kill.

Now...with those three reasons, I see this act one of "poorly thought out", but not directly of evil intent. This action was done in midst of combat with an opponent who was a credible threat to the Jedi.

The Jedi didn't use the Force to fling the lightsaber at the guy, nor did the Jedi strike with deliberate malicious intent. Jedi aren't incapable of killing, they're just not supposed to killed with hatred or fear clouding their judgement. I don't *think* that either present in the mind of the Jedi, thought unless we were there, we really can't say for sure.

So, in all, I say that he didn't really deserve the DSP. The GM has the ultimate call, though, so you've gotta go by his ruling.

Kas'ir Faywind
8 August 2002, 09:41 PM
I could agree with you grimmace but i think i need more information before i give a definitive answer but i am leaning towards DSP for one distinct reason, The jedi ignited his LS right into the guy while he was down. I could understand maybe if he swung at him but that seems a little malice to me.

9 August 2002, 01:36 AM
It does seem an interesting one this and it is a real shame there has been a differing of opinion between the GM and a player, I hope this doesnt spoil the group as it so often can.

Personally I do think it is a very difficult one to call although a couple of things, first of all what had happened just prior is important, i.e the level of beating up the Jedi recieved as mentioned before may well be important

However the thing i think i would use to swing this one u would have to have been there at the time. As a GM I would have been looking at the player himslef, did he in his attitude at the time say s*d it and kill the guy out of anger? If so lets face it it is reasonable to assume that the Pc killed the guy out of anger rather than need, in fact there is a strong case that he did act out of anger, as mentioned before it seems the Jedi made no attempt to consider redeemiong the character. (A bit hazy in a way i know because u dont see the Jedi in the films trying to redeem people first).

so basically id go for if the character seemed to do it out of anger then yes to a DSP.

Random Axe
9 August 2002, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Grimace
[BThird, the action of using the Force wasn't directly involved in the killing, only in the acquisition of a tool to kill. [/B]
Grimace, the DSP is warranted not because of the way the Jedi useed the Force, but because of how the Jedi handled himself. I very much agree with LiquidSaber in that the Jedi should have stood back (after retrieving his Saber), and waited for the new confrontation. If he had stood back to make himself ready, that would have demonstrated control over his emotions and surroundings. That he rushed to kill a prone baddy in the back shows a judgement that is clouded by fear, anger, revenge and/or desperation. THAT is where the Dark Side affects the Jedi, not simply in how they use the Force.

evan hansen
9 August 2002, 07:54 AM
*chuckles* I always find DSP threads amusing because there is no answer. Actually, more to the point, there are about 1,000 possible answers.

I suppose that it's good to solicit opinions from other holonetters -- a wide range of thoughts and opinions is *never* a bad thing.

But when posting -- and when answering -- a question, think about this one question: How do you view the Force?

That should almost act like a disclaimer on this type of thread for every poster involved. Some people view it as cut and dry, some think it more fluid. Within each of those, people create their own definitions of what's right and what's wrong. We have only the actions we see and read in movies and books to guide us as to what the "true" nature of the Force and the Dark Side is.

For me, an action has *never* defined a DSP. Intent and emotion are. If a player is clearly upset, not looking for alternatives, etc... then you have to award a DSP. Otherwise, you don't.

In short, I think most people will find it helpful if we remember to attach something of a little sentence or two that describes why we view the Force the way we do. That really sheds light on *why* you think or don't think a given player should get a DSP. I think that's the really helpful information -- not just whether you would do it or not.

And, really, the ultimate decision here is what's best for your game. Everyone obviously wants to stick kind of close to the Star Wars Universe that Lucas created -- but you also have to realize that this isn't a script. You're dealing with human players who are normally students, professionals, chefs, athletes, and whatever else they do in real life. They're bound to make mistakes or to interpret things differently than you.

As a GM, you *always* have to remember to keep the game in your head. It's Star Wars... but it's still just a game.

(So no, I wouldn't have given him a DSP. I think he was making a very human decision that he thought was right -- not out of anger or malice and certainly not for attack, but for some degree of defense.)

9 August 2002, 08:09 AM
Yoda Voice: "Agreed am I, with Random Axe and LiquidSaber . Control over fear, aggression, a Jedi must have. Posing for the holonews, a Jedi must not. Reason with the opponent, one must. Atone, must this Jedi or consume him, the dark side will."

Jim Williams
9 August 2002, 08:27 AM
In my view, if the enemy was helpless enough that the lightsaber could easily be put to his back and activated without the enemy having a chance to do anything about it, then the Jedi just got a DSP. It seems the Jedi here also had a chance to pull a Windu by holding a lightsaber (activated or not) next to a vital body part (in most games I would allow the player to make an easy hit roll) and tell them, "Move and you die. It is your choice." If they move, the already made attack roll stands and whatever appropriate damage is applied.

Never mind the other options even less aggressive available.

A Jedi is compelled to respect all life in all forms. This means from a simple carnivore to an opponent capable of evil actions. The burden is on the Jedi.

9 August 2002, 12:40 PM
LOl Ravager, great response :p

I think Hansen makes a good point, perhaps our responses would help a bit more if we provided a sentence or two at the begining of how we view the Force and the hazy line between light and dark.

That way we place the "current situation under discussion" on our little Lightside/Darkside roadmap and explain why.

I'm not sure if I can but I'll try not to repeat myself and everyone elses very competent replies. Here it goes:

As I see it Jedi are powerful and hence the old adage...with it comes great responsibility. Even though a Jedi must risk his life to do so a Jedi MUST make every opportunity to follow the Code. If there exists in any given situation an option to avoid death/killing, to prevent harm, or resolve a situation non-violently it MUST be taken, regardless.

The opponent was prone, Jim Williams has it right, he should have tried to detain his opponent. Unless the situation remained in the heat of combat with an opponent bent on destruction, then a simple flick and downward thrust/slice would have been all that is necessary. Anything else, such as the hilt touching and activation, is cruel and unusual. A Jedi is merciful, even when dealing out death. It must be quick and painless.

The horror his opponent must have felt upon hearing and feeling the lightsaber activate in the last few moments of his life should have produced enough emotional anguish that it could be felt via the force by the Jedi. This is the darkside, negative emotions. They must be avoided at all cost, or else suffer others will...

As a general recommendation for GMing it's a good idea to relate to the current PC of the feeling of negative emotions and the tainted feel of the Force at the exact moment before you tell them they've earned the Darkside point. They should be able to figure it out as you creepily describe to them what happens, kinda of a prep for the slapping them with a point or two.

9 August 2002, 12:54 PM
The only problem I see about asking players about what their characters feel (ans especially for this guy) is that they will not stay in character.

Example: When I ran a game I started to disarm my jedi so they would be easier to hit. I ask him how he was holding his saber and he said one handed. He found out that you get a +4 to the roll if you use two hands. Ever sinse then he always says two. Now this could just be the character learning. But I am afraid that he would just say that he was not feeling any anger at the time he did said act.

To shed some more light on the situation about said DSP. The jedi still had a lightsaber. He has two. So when he got his back he still had one in his otehr hand.

I don't think the guy was really a threat. He was outnumbered 6 to one and two of us had battle frames.

This guy has done things like hold his lightsaber up to a guy to keep him atbay. This was teh first time he turned it on. The action itself seems over aggresive to me. HE had also not been hurt all that bad. (GM had some bad rolls)

But all the information going around here is great. I find it to be good reading for my considerations on DSP in the future.

9 August 2002, 04:29 PM
Well, Dashdar, certain things would have been helpful in the initial description of the event. You initially claimed that the Jedi was disarmed. Now you state that the Jedi still had a lightsaber in one hand, and that the Jedi normally uses two lightsabers. Second, there was no mention of any sort of "many on one" circumstances until very recently. Some of these facts may have been helpful for others to base an opinion on.

Still, I think it boils down to what Kas'ir said, "You had to be there."

With the prior information you had given, I would still hold to my idea of no DSP. With the new information that you gave, I'd have to wonder why a lightsaber was even drawn, considering that the group outnumbered the sole individual. That's neither here nor there, though.

As I've said before, and I'll say again, it's the GM's call. Period. He (or she) has got the best grasp on the game and the general feeling that's surrounding play at the time. Without being there, we can all just guess at what "really" should have happened, or why such a circumstance occured. In all, the Dark Side is certainly all in general opinion. This thread certainly shows that there are differing opinions on what constitutes good and evil intent.

On a side note, I'd like to thank everyone for having a nice, intelligent conversation about this rather than getting into an I'm-right-you're-wrong-fest. :)

9 August 2002, 05:36 PM
Yes thanks. Sorry to not have all teh facts. It had been a while sinse we played and I just did not remember it all when I firt posted. It was teh first time my friend was a GM and he had second thoughts after the game so I thought I would ask to see what other ppl thought.

Thanks again for all the info.

9 August 2002, 10:12 PM
In case your friend GM was feeling bad have him read the thread may make him feel better!

And I agree, this was a good thread for darksid/lightside discussion. Thanks all, I hadn't had to really thik about it so clearly before, as if anything I think about is clear :p

12 August 2002, 05:09 PM
As a jedi you always have the option to hack of a limb instead of killing them. Considering the ease of aquiring replacement cybernetic limbs, it's often considered more humane.

In that instance, chopping off a hand would put him out of the fight, and wouldn't get a darkside point. As it stands, he deserved that DSP

13 August 2002, 11:25 AM
Well. How's about another thinker for ya all to 'pass judgement on'!

Situation. A jedi and bounty hunter (the jedi wearing coyonite armor, and hte hunter wearing his armor) are playing the roles of 2 hunters looking out for a mark. It was part of their cover story for the module i ran at Gencon.

While waltzing around, i had 2 bounty hunters jump them, using Stun battons, after mnatching the Jedi wearing his VERY noticable armor. 1st round was suprise, but the jedi, made a good enough perception roll i allowed him to make a defensive parry. Both got hit, but suffered only stuns. 2nd round- they lost init, and the 2 hunters paired off, 1 on 1. Still using their stun battons (which do both physical damage, str+1, and stun damage - 6d stunning), they manage to deliver another stun result to the jedi, and wound the B-hunter in the leg. THe jedi at this time, says he will spend a force point, whip out this lightsaber and chop them down, dead in their tracks....

At this remark, i let him know if he does that, he will get a DSP. My reasoning - 1) as a jedi he should look for other options to halt the combat before killing an opponent, and 2) they were using NON-Leathal means, stun battons, on the players.

He argued with me, for almost half an hour, that his actions would not warrent a dsp. I held to my thought point. WE both agreed to refer it to a head judge. He looked at the situation, and sided with the player, but dod give me the heads up, that surrendering was a free action, so the sisters (the npc bounty hunters), did just htat. THey saw the jedi whip out his light saber, and immediatly dropped their weapon. The jedi, then said he was holding off attacking them. I said
"as you hesitate, you see fear and understanding in their eyes, as they turn around to run away/flee."
He then immediatly said he will cut them down, (choping the legs off)no warning or anything. TO this i also warned him he would get a dsp. Again we were at an impass, and i was again over-rulled by a head judge.

Later on, during a little down period, i got the player to the side, to explain my reasoning, and likend what he did to the following situation:
Party of playters has to flee a planet cause one (or more) of the players in the party does something illegial, and gets the police/security on their tail. In space, the cops using their fighters shoot with ION CANNONS only at the parties ship, to disable, and th eplayers use a proton torp to blast them away. Overwealming Deadly force versus someone using non leathal force.
He still is un-repenant, and says if it was him in that situation, hell yes he would blow anyone away. It didn't matter the morals behind it. someone was shooting at him, he would kill them. No qualms, no quarter..........

13 August 2002, 01:12 PM
In the first scenario, I'm afraid that I have to side with your player. If a person is attacking you, even if it's with "non-lethal" force, then you have a right to defend youself. If you don't have anything but lethal force to use, you have to use it. Any case involving defense, I say the Jedi can kill the person.

If someone comes after you with a club, that might be considered "non-lethal." However, if all you have is a gun, and you use it, thats well within self-defense. Jedi aren't pacifists, by any stretch of the imagination. They just have a deep respect for life. That doesn't mean, that they can't kill if the situation warrants.

However, cutting down a person that's running from you DEFINITELY deserves a DSP. Their death is not necessary to preserve your life or freedom, and so is motivated out of anger or vengence only.

The Anarchisto

Jim Williams
13 August 2002, 01:28 PM
In the history of warfare I don't think there are many soldiers who would describe a club as non-lethal. Especially the ones who wound up with their brains dashed out onto the carpet.

That being said, there are two good phrases a lot of people in the SW galaxy probably know..."It's not wise to upset a Wookie" and "Don't mess with a Jedi". The Jedi in the first situation doesn't know what the end outcome of being captured will be...execution? questioning? A Jedi has a right to defend, with violence, when there is no other option.

With that being said, the burden is on the Jedi to show mercy whenever appropriate.

Someone picks a fight with a Jedi and gives them no option but to meet violence with violence, well, the Jedi has a lightsaber. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight someone once said.

13 August 2002, 01:28 PM
First situation, I'm with the player (although, really they should be going for a maiming action if they possibly can)

Second - Dark Side POINTS

They're definately running, you're not defending life/freedom in any way. That is not the path of the Jedi.

13 August 2002, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Jim Williams
Someone picks a fight with a Jedi and gives them no option but to meet violence with violence, well, the Jedi has a lightsaber. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight someone once said.

Or my own personal favourite (courtesy of Terry Pratchett)

"Never enter an arse-kicking contest with a Porcupine"

13 August 2002, 05:00 PM
I think I'd probably sit with everyone else so far...No DSP for the first action. Sure, it's poorly thought out, but the Jedi might be viewing it as the only option (even though it's not). For cutting them down when they're fleeing, I'd give him a DSP.

Yet another reason why I would never game at a Con...those stupid head judges. :rolleyes:

14 August 2002, 03:18 AM
WEll, for note, i look at things from my perspective due to being in security in the military. It teaches and makes sure you remember (by having you masted/court martialed if youy mess up), the rules. When fighting, you MATCH or use 1 step LOWER on the force chart. If someone is using a melee weapon, to subdue, YOU DENY him the use of the weapon, not just pull out your gun and blast him.

THe jedi in question, is also a medic, and carries STUN grenades, and a pair of modified pistols (to my recollection of his character sheet).

14 August 2002, 03:39 AM
I think Wolverine was right in the first place: the Jedi should have cut the stun sticks in half, not the bounty hunters. Or knocked them back with a Force Wave. Or intimidated them (at least tried to). Or knocked them out. There were loads of options. And as to the second DSP, everybody has already explained this one.
GreenCape starts to rant about GenCon, and a walking sticks moves out of the wings, round it's neck, and yanks it offstage.

14 August 2002, 06:08 AM
Wolverine, I side completely on your behalf in BOTH situations. However, at Gencon personally as a GM I would play a little less rigidly (I'm normally VERY strict with my Jedi Players). A Con is an all out Wham Bam thank you GM and although I've never GMed a Con before I figure its gotta be alot harder to do than Gming a "regular" group. On the topic of the Head Judge I'd have to have more faith in their Judgment beofre I could GM at GenCon, inherently I get a funny feeling in me stomach knowing I'm a pseudo-GM at the table and not the final authority, makes Gming even more difficult. But I understand that this hierarchy is in place to help protect players from a potentially damaging GM experience. Also, I imagine the Head Judges tend to promote player fun by skewing their view points to favor players of GMs, this of course while it encourages players at GenCon does the exact opposite for GMs (once again making it even harder...). So my hats off to you Wolverine and overyother mad soul who willing subjects themselves to such skullduggery! ;p

That being said, *sigh* once I get started...anyhow, as for the situations:

The first situation I would award a DSP as the Jedi is more than capable of handling the situation and any use of brutal/uncompromising force is a distinct breach in Jedi control. Limbs and Weapons should have been the target of attack as Green Cape has already mentioned. Thus personally I would provide an explanation of what they are doing and what it means, then award the DSP if they continued in the act. At a Con however I would go easy on them as they are beign attacked and responding in kind...can't expect strange players I don't know to neccessarily play with skill, tact, and perceptivity...heh. :)

The second situation, uh, a no-brainer. The Head Judge should be persecuted for unlawful treatment of a good GM :p In my opinion, good Gms means good GenCon...

14 August 2002, 01:36 PM
Thanks for the praise.. First off, it is not htat hard to gm at a con. I actually find it a little easier, but i tent to have to break my golden rule (NO MERCY!!!) when i have a table of 2 veterens and 5 newbies (have had this several times).

The 'head' judges are not really head gm's in that sense, they are more like a council, which meets several times a year to decide hpow to best move the campaign along. If i did not like them, i would not have 5 modules in for submission and playing (which 2 of, will be premering at next years gencon), but they do have the ability to over-rule a gm, if the player and Gm on the table BOTH present their sides...

The only other time i had a ruling over-ridden, was with a character's near capture by imps. He was adament that capture by a building's security force (which they were trying to break into) by using stun only blaters constituted a life threatning situation, and i thought it did not. So i was only allowing him to spend the max of 2 character points on his rolls, not 5 which the rules allow for life threatning situations. I said if he wished, we would take it to the head judge/council head, and he agreed. While the judge DID agree, that stun shots were not immediatly life threatning, as he was a newbie (4th starwars game) i should allow it. So we did, but all the others on the table wer under no uncertain terms, that they would still be held to the rules......

15 August 2002, 03:05 AM
Here is another situation..

Players are on a rebel planet undergoing a 'king of the hill' paintball/laser tag type training mission (stun weapons only), when the Imps come a-calling. THey also are only (at first) using stun bolts, but DO have a heavy e-web set up. THeir orders are simple, show up in force and get the party to surrender. If they don't after a few rounds, open up with the eweb on 1 of the players, to show them they are capable of being killed. One player, a smuggler, get's shot with the e-web and goes down to incap. Imp commander has his other 24 troops hold fire, while he offers the rest of the rebels the chance to surrender.

All the players start to give up, but one inquires how many DSP's he would receive if he was to spend a FP, call upon the darkside, and useing his 4x speed, zoom behind the imp's line, take over the e-web and blast them all in the back, NO warning, No mercy.

TO my thought processes, i would say 2 to 3. 1 for the call, and 1 to 2 for the shooting in the back.....

Jim Williams
15 August 2002, 04:59 AM
What does warning matter to a Jedi? They are not creatures of honor or morals. It seems like he was taking action to defend against the Imperial aggression. And the sentence for engaging in Rebellious activity is death?

The way I see it, the E-web at that point was probably the PCs only out. As for mercy, which I tout a lot as being necessary for Jedi, it should only be given when appropriate.

Before I go any further, we may need to agree on what the impact of an E-web would be like. Is it just a weapon that does high damage? If so, the PC can count on being pinned down by return fire from 20+ troopers, grenades, etc. The PC had better start taking decisive action fast. Or is it a weapon truly capable of laying down a swath of destruction in seconds? This is not exactly the way many PCs could use it according to the rules, but if you were going to allow it to be that intimidating, then the PC should have settled for seizing control of the weapon. And pointing it at the commander 8o . Of course, if they were stormtroopers, their surrender (unless being ordered to) would not be an option.

Ahhh, forget it. I missed the part about calling on the dark side. Was he out of Force points?

15 August 2002, 06:43 AM
I'd say just the darkside points for calling upon the darkside.

The rest seems to be a valid action to do in the heat of combat, unless of course he's using the force to pump it's damage up to the max (I don't know if you can do that in D20, but you could in D6)

Lord Diggori
15 August 2002, 07:19 AM
As for the warning I'd say require that, depending the situation. A Mind trick could avoid the need for combat or an intimidate could hamper their skill (depending on how you'd run it). At the very least it's like a liability waiver.

If that warning doesnt work, I'd give DSP for the calling on the darkside. The resulting E-Web shots are primarily defensive it seems, especially if they didn't heed the intial warning.

15 August 2002, 08:16 AM
I'm beginning to be surprised at the trend of people that seem to believe that there's no excuse for Jedi killing people. A few things to remember:

A Jedi is powerful, but they can still get killed. They are still sentient beings with a right to defend themselves against imprisonment or death. And 24 stormtroopers are MORE than enough to give any one person a lot of problems.

If ANYONE is given the choice to either submit to imprisonment or fight back, there is nothing wrong with fighting back. Look at Mace Windu in Episode II. No one should ever get dark side points for defending themselves. Sure, if they aren't really threatened by the attackers, then they should try to keep the fatalities to a minimum.

But if you're outnumbered, outgunned, and looking at spending the rest of your life in a spice mine, anything you do (short of calling on the Darkside) is fair game, and doesn't deserve a DSP.

A second thing to remember is that this is WAR! And in war, you only worry about not killing people when you have such overwhelming power that you can afford that luxury. Obviously, if you're outgunned and outnumbered, you can't afford to be squeamish about killing people.

Frankly, I thought that it was an inventive, and clever move to get yourself out of a tough situation. One dark side point for calling on the dark side of the force, and no more.

And just for curiousities sake, if someone was invading YOUR house, would you be worried about the morality of killing them? Sure, no one wants to have to do it. But that doesn't make it wrong.

evan hansen
15 August 2002, 09:37 AM
I find the argument that a Jedi didn't do everything in his or her power to save someone to be without much merit.

Consider the films. In AotC, do any of the Jedi appear that they'll be trying to avoid fatal conflict with Dooku? I mean, why not just lop both his legs and arms off so he's a rolling stump? Maybe hang him up in one of those energy binders that he had Obi-Wan trapped in. I mean, come now. There are times when a Jedi kills people.

The Force is not something that you can apply patchwork, numerical schemes to. It's part of why it's hard to capture well in an RPG. You simply *cannot* boil the Force down into dice, dark side points, force points, and levels.

Light side versus dark side -- it's a gut feeling. It's right and wrong. It's morals. It's made of the areas of thought that philosophers have been debating for *ages and ages and ages* on Earth. To assume that there are any cut and dry rules about when to give a DSP and when not is foolhardy, and you'll find yourself in unnecessary arguments with players/GMs if you expect any different.

We used to sometimes completely devalue DSPs. They meant nothing in our games. If you started to do angry things, your character was noticably hostile, if you attacked people instead of defending yourself, people started to kind of shy away from you, etc... But there was no numerical or quantitative way to handle that. And it was as much on the player to figure when he had stepped over the line and start acting a little more wicked as a result. The Dark Side just can't fit onto a linear graph, ya know?

Anyhow, I find it interesting how often we -- I say "we" because I do it as much as anyone else -- get into circular logic with the Force, etc... and related threads on here. Just a thought that I think fits kind of well into this convo.

15 August 2002, 11:25 AM
First off, the character was NOT a jedi, who made the remark about spending his ONLY force point, and then calling for the dark side, and using the e-web to blast all the stormies.....

Let me explain my point of view if i may. Firstly, there were Other teams (4) on the planet who were converging on their position, and from the time they would have been captured, to getting to the half way point to the stormies shuttle, 2 of those 4 would have staged an attack freeing them (IT IS NOT IN THE MODULE THAT WAY, but the head judge and author of the module said to make it so, IF the party get's vaptured.
Secondly, while yes, it is war, shooting people in the back, to my mind is still a no no. Which is what he would have done. NOW, if he did just grab the eweb and hold it on the captain, telling him to have his troops surrender, and the captain didn't, then he shoots him, i would have not had a problem with that.
and lastly, the player even agreed to the fact he would be getting additional dark side points, from doing what he did, he was just asking me how many i felt he would get. It was kind of a hypothetical, but he decided not to do it, after finding out how many he would get.

And yes, i also agree that jedi are allowed to kill, BUT ONLY AFTER EXHAUSTING all other methods. Going into a fight with the express intent of killing those who are against you seems, to me, a no no....

15 August 2002, 01:08 PM
I think Wolvering made an interesting comment that warrants discussion - first, how much responsibilty does a Jedi have to avoid fatalities, and is it wrong for them to intend to kill people?

I think a Jedi's first responsibilty it to his team/group members, and to the Jedi Order. I think a Jedi's second responsibility is to keep himself alive. Only after those two comes a responsibility to avoid killing someone. If a Jedi or other character is going to endanger himself, and his group members, by trying to give other the opportunity to surrender, or being chivalrous, then they've got their priorities all mixed up.

Look at Mace again (sorry, he's the best example) in Episode II. Now, if memory serves, when he fights Jango Fett, he chops his blaster pistol, and then beheads him. Do I think this was wrong? No. He was in a war time situation where his mercy would endanger other Jedi. Regrettable, perhaps, but not wrong.

Sure, if you're fighting a bounty hunter that doesn't know you're there, take a limb and keep down the fatalities. But if you're fighting someone who has a good to excellent chance of killing you, you shoot in the back, take them by surprise, or whatever you have to do to ensure your survival, and the survival of your team.

Wolvering, sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. I just think many people are too strict with their Jedi - when it comes down to it, they're still fighting in a life-or-death situation, and have the right to defend themselves, just like the rest of us mortals do.

16 August 2002, 07:48 AM
If they're not a jedi, then (according to the WEG rules; not sure about the WoTC rules) they only get a darkside point for commiting an act of great evil whilst spending a force point at a dramatically appropriate moment.... which this doesn't count as.

In fact, in the WEG rules, I could have given that character their force point back, and possibly an extra one at the end of the adventure. They'd still have that DSP though.

Kas'ir Faywind
16 August 2002, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by The_Anarchisto

Look at Mace again (sorry, he's the best example) in Episode II. Now, if memory serves, when he fights Jango Fett, he chops his blaster pistol, and then beheads him. Do I think this was wrong? No. He was in a war time situation where his mercy would endanger other Jedi. Regrettable, perhaps, but not wrong.

But Jango also had a flamethrower, rocket launcher, zip cord thingie, etc.

16 August 2002, 08:49 AM
If this is d20 and the PC in question is not force sensitive then you don't have to worry about it because he can't call upon the darkside. Besides if he's not a Jedi how the heck did he learn force speed? An ex-Jedi then? Just curious...

16 August 2002, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by LiquidSaber
Besides if he's not a Jedi how the heck did he learn force speed? An ex-Jedi then? Just curious...

Actually, that's a very good point. Scrub what I said and replace the word "Jedi" with "Force Sensitive"

16 August 2002, 09:52 AM
He didn't and wasn't. In sparks, although it is not actually in the GM's rule book, most, if not all of the main gm's and all the council, allow a FP to also double movement (so spending a FP, and using the 1 additional fp frm calling the dark side would quadrouple the movement)...

16 August 2002, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by wolverine
He didn't and wasn't. In sparks, although it is not actually in the GM's rule book, most, if not all of the main gm's and all the council, allow a FP to also double movement (so spending a FP, and using the 1 additional fp frm calling the dark side would quadrouple the movement)...

Eek, sounds like it's verging on munchkinism to do that!

I mean, double movement for a force point is fair enough I supose (not that I would allow that anyway) but to quadruple your movement without even being a force sensitive?

BTW this is D20 isn't it?

16 August 2002, 01:29 PM
no it's d6,. and as such, there is no 'burst of speed' force powers.... That is why most of the gms for sparks allow the increase to movement when burning force points.