PDA

View Full Version : Another Dark Side Point question



Wedge in Red2
18 August 2002, 07:56 PM
Okay, once again itís time for a discussion on whether or not to give a DSP. :)

Hereís my situation.

My PCís are breaking into a speeder sales lot to steal an astromech droid. The R2 unit is borderline stolen property Ė some swoopers found it in an abandoned warehouse and took it, selling it to the owner of the speeder lot. They didnít know the droid belonged to the PCís contact that had gone missing.

Anyway, the Jedi uses his Handle Animal skill (enhanced with force abilities) to distract the equivalent of guard dogs, luring them to the other end of the lot. The other PCís cut through the fence and try to break into the shed to free the droid.

Now, thereís a mouse droid patrolling the lot that spots this going on and signals the guard dogs to come running. The Jedi, seeing the game is up, races back to help. Battle ensues. One of the guard dogs is pretty badly mauling a PC droid (out of vitality and down to wounds) when the Jedi gets there. The Jedi charges forward and kills the dog.

Now, I didnít give a DSP, my reasoning being the Jedi was acting to defend an ally. There didnít appear to be any alternative Ė the dog was going to continue attacking the droid until it was destroyed unless he killed it.

I think it was borderline, though. First, he was acting with aggression by charging (ďAnger, Fear, Aggression, the Dark Side are theyĒ as Yoda said). Second, he was killing a living creature (part of the Force) to protect a non-living entity (not part of the Force). Third, the Jedi came from a pacifist society that abhors violence.

What do people think? I issued a warning to the Jedi that the behaviour was borderline.

Also, what about the theft of the droid? Isnít theft a product of greed, and greed is a dark side emotion?

Thoughts please?

Jon

Kelcheck
18 August 2002, 08:30 PM
Well the killing of an animal is not the same as the killing of a sentient, yes it is part of the force, but the creature would have contenued the attack had he not reacted, when one chooses the life of a Jedi they acept that violence, although discuraged, is part of their life at some point. they do after all carry one of the most powerful weapons in the galaxy, and have been called the equal to 100 regular solders. I could use several examples from the movies, but I assume that you have seen them so there is no need. As to the question of the droid, it was theirs at one point, but I would need to have some additional info as to why the droid was so important. did it contain info they needed? Perhaps a bit more detail about the story, and what the droid the Jedi's or a friend's? In the later case you could argue that the Jedi was helping the friend, as is he duty to do so. I guess it could be argued either way, but with the info I have, if it was in my group I would have to rule No on the dark side point

Kas'ir Faywind
18 August 2002, 08:40 PM
Parting with rules and all possible Canon quotes i can give you this small advice.

When dealing with cannon fodder, in this case the "dogs", killing them should be ok up to an extent; no marking up, mad looting, using force skills to hurt. If there is some hired thug they run into the street and the thug attacks the Jedi, providing he was the provoker and the jedi "tried" to warn him, i don't have a problem with it aslong as the PC is having fun and is not abusing the leanancy(sp?)

Wedge in Red2
18 August 2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Kelcheck
Well the killing of an animal is not the same as the killing of a sentient, yes it is part of the force, but the creature would have contenued the attack had he not reacted, when one chooses the life of a Jedi they acept that violence, although discuraged, is part of their life at some point.

Yeah, good call. Although I didn't say it in my original post, I do thik it made a difference that it was a creature rather than a sentient being.


As to the question of the droid, it was theirs at one point, but I would need to have some additional info as to why the droid was so important. did it contain info they needed? Perhaps a bit more detail about the story, and what the droid the Jedi's or a friend's?

[/B]
They were trying to track down the droids owner, a spy for the New Republic who had dissappeared. They discovered (from the swoopers) that they had sold his (the spies) droid to the guy at the speeder lot. They figured the droid might have information regarding the spies whereabouts.

One thing that crossed my mind regarding the theft was alternatives. In most cases if there is a "less evil" alternative and the Jedi chooses the "more evil' alternative I would lean towards a DSP depending on the severity. In this case they could have offered to perhaps buy the droid (they didn't have enough credits, although they have plenty of stuff they could sell if they really wanted to).

Although I don't know if theft is severe enough to warrant a DSP. If it was theft purely for the point of wanting something (i.e. greedy), then yes. However, this was something they needed to track down a missing (and presumably in trouble) ally, so I think the need outweighs the crime.

Anyway, just a few points. Hopefully you get the idea :).

Jon

Darklighter
18 August 2002, 08:57 PM
Hey Wedge in Red2. Just a few thoughts here on your 3 reasons.


Originally posted by Wedge in Red2

First, he was acting with aggression by charging (ďAnger, Fear, Aggression, the Dark Side are theyĒ as Yoda said). Second, he was killing a living creature (part of the Force) to protect a non-living entity (not part of the Force). Third, the Jedi came from a pacifist society that abhors violence.


1. Are you sure it was anger and aggression to charge? A jedi must act, and do so in time, to be effective. You said yourself that the PC Driod was fairly close to destruction. Do, or do not, etc. Anyway, unless the Jedi specifically states he's screaming in rage, or enjoying slicing up the dog, or uses more violence than strictly necessary, I wouldn't nail him or her for this. They had to act.

2. They had to act, living creature or not. Imagine this conversation around your table.

"Hey, Jedi dude (or dudette :) ), I'm being mauled here! Get over here and help me out," exclaims the player of the droid

"Can't do it," says the Jedi player. "My character is having a philosophical dilemma over aiding a droid at the expense of a living creature. Sorry. You're on your own."

Do you see a problem? I do. I hope this never happens in my games. That's the reality aspect of a gaming group I wanted to point out. A team helps each other out, and players hate to lose their characters. The Jedi player had to act, or I bet he'd have been dealing with a very angry player of the droid.

This point also carries over into the game. A group of people are working for a common objective. Then one sits out a confrontation, and a teammate/asset gets killed or destroyed. The rest of the team realizes they can't depend on that person. They're kicked out (at best).

All of that aside, a recurring theme in the EU is the coming sentience of C3PO and R2-D2. Can any Jedi truly claim to understand the Force in all its mysteries and complexities? Does a lack of presence in the Force reduce a droid to a lesser status, below all things living? Perhaps this droid is destined to play a part in some critical event in the future. (Since the droid is a PC, you can actually make a strong argument for this. Campaign climax, anyone?)

3. This is the best reason for issuing a warning. Faced with the corpses of creatures killed at his or her hands, this is when the Jedi should have the crisis of conscience. Still, the teaching of the Jedi is not wholly pacifistic, and the need to act would have been part of the training as well. Nevertheless, the Jedi should at least roleplay a certain discomfort with his or her actions.

Oh wait. I almost forgot the 4th reason here. :)

4. Stealing the Droid. I think the droid was already stolen. Were they trying to return it to their contact? That can't be bad. Did it have something key to the 'larger accomplishment of good' in its innards? Or were they after just it because they wanted it? Hmm. Need more information on this.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts. On the whole, I would not have issued a warning, unless it was clear that the player acted from anger. Rather, I would have let it happen, and watched for how the player roleplayed his character's reaction to the violence, rewarding or penalizing experience points as appropriate at the end of the adventure. I don't think a DSP needs to be a part of it at all.

I hope that at least offers a useful alternate spin on things. Good luck! :)

Wedge in Red2
18 August 2002, 09:08 PM
Thanks guys, I appreciate all you input (especially Darklighter, your stuff made a lot of sense and gave a lot of my issues with the matter closure).

Apologies for the last post being half in bold, I tried to go back and edit it but some some reason it won't change it (note the "/ B" in the edited post).

Jon

VixenofVenus
18 August 2002, 09:09 PM
Theft
- One question: Did they even try to wheel-and-deal for the droid's return? Or did they just go "oh no, those guys have it ... lets steal it" Cause there is a big difference if they didn't even try to get it through the moral or legal ways.

Dog Killing
- NO DSP in my opinion, he charged over to protect (A Jedi's Mission - Protectors of the Galaxy), killed the Dog (do you allow called shots and disabling attacks - like chopping off a limb, etc? If so he should have done that, but if not its still only a warning), even though the droid isn't considered 'alive', Luke Skywalker would have given his life to save 3PO or R2-D2.

Wedge in Red2
18 August 2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by VixenofVenus
Theft
- One question: Did they even try to wheel-and-deal for the droid's return? Or did they just go "oh no, those guys have it ... lets steal it" Cause there is a big difference if they didn't even try to get it through the moral or legal ways.


No, they didn't try to deal for it. Which, I guess in hindsight, is one of the reasons I took a little offense at it.


Dog Killing
- NO DSP in my opinion, he charged over to protect (A Jedi's Mission - Protectors of the Galaxy), killed the Dog (do you allow called shots and disabling attacks - like chopping off a limb, etc? If so he should have done that, but if not its still only a warning), even though the droid isn't considered 'alive', Luke Skywalker would have given his life to save 3PO or R2-D2.

The campaign is fairly new and the idea of a called shot hasn't actually come into the game yet :). Even if it did, I don't think he would have tried -he's a 2nd level Jedi Consular, fighting with a vibro-blade which he's not proficient with (-4) (they're on an Imperial planet, hence why he's not carrying his lightsaber).

Another overshadowing thought (which I had about half an hour ago) was Luke in Return of the Jedi. Luke tore up Jabba's minions. Admittedly, some of them he used Deflect SQ to deal with them, but you can say Luke was being pretty aggressive in taking them out. Now, it could be that Luke was accumulating a few DSP's but I would tend to think not. As Darklighter said in his first point, there's a time for action, and that was the time (Luke had given Jabba, and by association his minions, plenty of opportunities to surrender peacefully). Anyway, that's just a little aside :).

Jon

gpetruc
19 August 2002, 12:40 PM
I'd say no DSP for killing the dog: the Jedi was protecting an ally, and he probably didn't have any other way to deal with the dog. Yet I'll say that the character should feel sorry for the dog (the player shouldn't be saying "Great, I've sliced that damn dog in one shot"), and if he doesn't, consider it a minor trasgression and when you've added up some of them give a DSP when he levels up, unless the character atones himself.

Also, I think charging does not meen acting with bad feelings, and so it doesn't deserve a DSP: you can run and attack simply because the enemy is far from you while being calm: actually in lots of the combats in the SW films Jedi effectively charge their enemies.
(It will also create game-balance issues to disallow Jedi to charge)

Once it happened that a Jedi Consular (specialized in protecting and healing) attacked an assassin that was trying to kill the diplomat he was protecting. The character tried first to intimidate the thug, but he didn't succed. There was really few time, and so he attacked. The thug was already wounded, but the character wasn't able to disarm him (1st level, he would have succeeded only on a natural 20 and in all this time the thug would have shot the diplomat, that was unconscious). He hit him with the lightsaber and rolled max damage, killing the thug instantly. (usually he knocks them out and then uses his healing skills to keep them from dying, but this time he was unlucky and the thug was immediatly dead). The character felt sad for this (It was the first person he killed) and so I didn't give a DSP.

VixenofVenus
19 August 2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Wedge in Red2

Another overshadowing thought (which I had about half an hour ago) was Luke in Return of the Jedi. Luke tore up Jabba's minions. Admittedly, some of them he used Deflect SQ to deal with them, but you can say Luke was being pretty aggressive in taking them out. Now, it could be that Luke was accumulating a few DSP's but I would tend to think not.

I do tend to agree with you that Luke was tearing up 'Sentients' who made their choice to be 'evil' ... but Luke tried just evasion and running away tactics before killing the Rancor ... an animal? Maybe only I see the difference there ... but I am VERY hard on my Jedi PC's ... its a responsibility to play a Jedi PC and therefore ... as hard as it is for them ... thats how hard I make it for them.

Otonashi
20 August 2002, 05:53 AM
Just thought that I'd chime in on a point that has yet to be touched upon. You said that the Jedi comes from a nonviolent race? Well with the donning on the Jedi mantel, the character should shed his racial bias and aspire to be something more.
This came up once with the Wookiees and their rage ability. The RCRB states that they do not get DSPs for using this ability. I argue that a Wookie Jedi should be above this sort of primal act and therefore would receive a DSP. Anyway, my point is that just because the Jedi doesn't like killing, and his species considers it taboo, he is bound by the laws of the Jedi now, not his home world.

reliant
20 August 2002, 07:28 AM
I'd have to say that your Jedi would NOT deserve a DSP for killing the dog. Acting to save his comrade (even if he was a droid) was reason enough to kill the dog, and attempts had been made to keep the dogs otherwise occupied and thus NOT just kill them outright.

The jedi was just aggressively negotiating with the dog... :D

Fab
20 August 2002, 08:26 AM
I say give 'em a DSP, not for killing the dog, but for the entire mess. In Episode I Qui-Gonn could have very easily broken into Watto's junk yard and stolen the parts. He didn't even entertain the thought. He tried to deal with Watto using what he had. When Watto wouldn't take Republic credits, only then did Qui-Gonn try to use the Force on him. I can't speak about whether using the Force to try to convince Watto to take the credits was right or wrong, but that's not the point. Had Qui-Gonn broken in and stolen the parts, and gotten away clean, would he have deserved a DSP? Yes, regardless of any other motivations.

Your guys should have gone in the following morning and bought that speeder from the guy. If they didn't have enough cash, they should reserve that speeder and go out and find, make, borrow enough cash. If he completely refuses to sell the speeder for a decent price (let's say he sees their need for that speeder and inflates the price 100 times) then they should do what I could imagine being done in the movies, waiting until someone else buys it and then buy it from that person.

If they had to break in (for example, they needed info from the droid before morning) they should at least swap droids. They should take another R2 unit in there, pull theirs out and put the other one in. Under no circumstances should they make out on the deal, even if it was stolen from them. It wasn't the speeder salesman who stole from them, so their problem was with the real thief, not this businessman.

My final judgement: a DSP for all who took part, not because they killed a dog, but because they committed many crimes as the result of misplaced motivations.

Ace Calhoon
20 August 2002, 09:57 AM
Another very important thing to consider is how good, or bad, your campaign should be. Determine how many times your characters would need to perform a specific darkside point earning action before they turn (what is it... half wisdom in D20?), then ask yourself how bad that is.

Example: In D6, seven DSPs is guarenteed to turn a character. Would you consider a character who has stolen seven droids, or killed seven dogs to be too evil for a player character to use? Yes? Give the DSP. No? Don't.

Manticore
21 August 2002, 11:37 AM
hey, are you Rory Calhoon? like Burns' dog there? hahaha, good one.
anywhoor, that is an EXCELLENT point, my friend.
Consider wether this action, repeated enough times will turn the Jedi to the Dark side.

That is an excellent yard stick to messure your Jedi PC's actions by. Just don't let them know, that is your method, or else they might decide to take advantage (we are all min/maxers at heart, aren't we?) will be shoplifting like mad and picking pockets and all kinds of other 'little' things.

Ace Calhoon
22 August 2002, 08:51 AM
or else they might decide to take advantage (we are all min/maxers at heart, aren't we?) will be shoplifting like mad and picking pockets and all kinds of other 'little' things.

This is where you start having other consequences show up (DSPs aren't the only way to punish a player). I wouldn't consider a shoplifter too evil to be a PC, but he might wind up with legal troubles if he kept it up ;)

malphas13
23 August 2002, 12:18 PM
Just an asside. I believe Qui-Gonn did steal some parts for Anakin's speeder. The scene wasn't used in the movie however. :)

damado
29 August 2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Fab
It wasn't the speeder salesman who stole from them, so their problem was with the real thief, not this businessman.

My final judgement: a DSP for all who took part, not because they killed a dog, but because they committed many crimes as the result of misplaced motivations.

In a way it was. He purchased stolen merchandise and probably won't have a way to prove the origins of the droid. Still the players should have at least tried to reason with the merchant that it would be better for him to stay on the good side of the law.

Wedge in Red2
3 September 2002, 05:24 PM
Another situation, this time theoretical, that deals with similar issues.
Suppose a Jedi was exploring a ruins, and he entered a room. There stands an animal, teeth bared and hissing. The Jedi doesnít leave, the animal attacks. The Jedi kills the animal. Then, he discovers that heís walked into the creatures nesting area, and there is a litter of baby animals in the corner. The creature was defending itís young. Would you award a DSP there?

I think I would, depending on the reasoning behind entering the room. If the Jedi went in there to rescue a captured comrade, thatís fine. But if theyíve just gone in there to nosy around, then I would think a DSP. My reasons...I don't know, it just seems morally wrong to intrude and then kill.

Not that I think it would happen. Any Jedi I know would likely try to use Empathy, followed by Animal Handing, to calm the animal.

What do others think?

Jon

Hal
3 September 2002, 06:55 PM
Jon's jolly Jedi PC player here :D with just a few answers to people's questions (BTW cool discussion and do not take this as meaning that I am in any way trying to sway peoples opinions :D)

1. The merchant was a known fence on an Imperial world who bought an X Wing and its R2D2 from a swooper gang. C'mon he knew it was dodgy.

2. We attempted to bargain for the droid but he didn't want to sell it as he knew it would get the merchant in trouble for fencing stolen goods. It took us about 30 minutesof negotiating just to get him to agree to show us the droid.

3. The merchant had taken the droid's legs off and was actively trying to memory wipe it to cover any "complications".

4. The droid was the only lead to saving a rebel spy and time was of the essence. The group does not intend to keep the droid as its not theirs but return it to its rightful owner.

5. The group tried to pacify the dogs with tranqulised meat but it didn't work. So the Jedi used Animal Empathy and Empathy to keep the dogs away trying to avoid a confrontation.

This does pose another question though. The group did own a swoop. The Jedi PC wanted to sell the swoop for the droid. However, the rest of the group didn't want to and the Jedi is only a young (17) apprentice and holds little sway with the others. The Jedi and the group are on a mission for the Republic where lives depended on them.

Now as far as I can see the Jedi could have done one of the following:

1. Took the swoop behind the group's back and sold it. This would endanger the mission as the group would have fallen apart.

2. Not gone with the group to steal the droid. This would have endangered the group and mission. It would have also meant that the group would have been more "direct" in their approach.

3. Gone with the group and attempt to stop the group from doing anything but what was required i.e. prevent them from performing any blatantly evil acts. For example the Jedi came up with the idea of the tranquilised meat and performing a distraction for the dogs.

Out of the three options considering that the matters mentioned like the culpability of the merchant, the fact that the droid was stolen and the urgency of the mission, I opted to take the third option. The second option of turning a blind eye seems entirely wrong. The first option I am unsure of though. I am happy that option three was not motivated by fear, anger or aggression.

I would be interested to see how people deal with Jedi/group conflicts. What I took from the situation is that the Jedi needs to try to get the group to walk a better path. But should they force them?

Wedge in Red2
3 September 2002, 07:40 PM
Oh, you little rascal (wags finger at Hal) :D!

Er, ah, no, er, I was talking about another group that I ran through that adventure...

Okay, yeah, Hal is the Jedi player. And he does raise some good points that I might have, purely for the sake of brevity you understand ;), forgotten to mention.

It brings up an interesting situation, though. What happens when a Jedi thinks they are doing right, but are actually doing wrong?



However, the rest of the group didn't want to and the Jedi is only a young (17) apprentice and holds little sway with the others.

This is an interesting point too. In the movies, no one would dare go against the suggestions of Obi-Wan, Yoda or Luke. I think that perhaps the Jedi needs to learn to manipulate the group a bit more...

And Hal, you can forget you read that last post of mine. (Waves hand in front of Hal's face) You didn't read that last post about searching through a ruins and coming across a creatures lair...

Jon :)

Hal
3 September 2002, 08:53 PM
It brings up an interesting situation, though. What happens when a Jedi thinks they are doing right, but are actually doing wrong?

Personally I am big on subjective motivations. The whole acting out of fear, anger and aggression seems to suggest that intention is important. This is why I have an issue with automatic DSPs for actions. Sure some actions will 99.99% of the time motivated by fear, anger and aggression but there are always exceptions.

BTW this I would consider a Jedi turning a blind eye or acting recklessly to preserve good motivations as up for a DSP. That's why I thought not going with the group on its wicked deed was worse than going with them and keeping an eye on them.


This is an interesting point too. In the movies, no one would dare go against the suggestions of Obi-Wan, Yoda or Luke. I think that perhaps the Jedi needs to learn to manipulate the group a bit more...

Not every Jedi looks to manipulate others. So far the group has not strayed far enough to require such. But things will get interesting when it happens.


And he does raise some good points that I might have, purely for the sake of brevity you understand , forgotten to mention.

Like the tranq meat idea being a good one, but being mysteriously defeated by a mystical text called "The Adventure" :D


And Hal, you can forget you read that last post of mine. (Waves hand in front of Hal's face) You didn't read that last post about searching through a ruins and coming across a creatures lair...

To be honest I didn't (I raced right on by it) but you have piqued my interest with you last post :)

Wedge in Red2
3 September 2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Hal

Like the tranq meat idea being a good one, but being mysteriously defeated by a mystical text called "The Adventure" :D

Well, the text specifically said "nothing short of combat will stop the caniphants". And Honest Elam (the speeder dealer) was no slouch, he probably kept them well feed to prevent such a ploy...as I said when it didn't work. Hey, it was a good idea, I won't argue that.


Personally I am big on subjective motivations. The whole acting out of fear, anger and aggression seems to suggest that intention is important. This is why I have an issue with automatic DSPs for actions. Sure some actions will 99.99% of the time motivated by fear, anger and aggression but there are always exceptions.

Thatís very interesting. Iíd tend to agree. Look at Qui-Gon for example. He did what he believed was right, even going against the will of the Jedi Council on some occasions. Now I havenít seen his stats, but Iím fairly sure he wasnít riddled with DSPís. So obviously intention has something to do with it.



To be honest I didn't (I raced right on by it) but you have piqued my interest with you last post :)

Oh, you little rascal (wags finger at Hal) :D! That does it, I'm killing off your character in tonights game :D.

Jon

LiquidSaber
4 September 2002, 10:59 PM
Suppose a Jedi was exploring a ruins, and he entered a room. There stands an animal, teeth bared and hissing. The Jedi doesnít leave, the animal attacks. The Jedi kills the animal. Then, he discovers that heís walked into the creatures nesting area, and there is a litter of baby animals in the corner. The creature was defending itís young. Would you award a DSP there?

As long as the Jedi was not brought to the ruins by selfish motivations he shouldn't get a DSP. Ideally, the Jedi should attempt to subdue the animal, wisdom dictates such a response as he is in fact invading the creatures natural habitat. However, when met with force it is appropriate to meet in kind. IMHO no DSP should be awarded. Jedi PCs should never be held to the expectation of acting with wisdom at all times (cmon these are PCs were talking about afterall...).

Remember, morality has little to do with being a Jedi. To quote the RCR p.178 "...Jedi are not enforcers of morality." The only law a Jedi must follow is the Jedi Code.

If it's cute a fuzzy but bars the path towards saving lives, or the greater good, then it gets sliced into teeny weeny cutsey little bits :p

wolverine
5 September 2002, 03:05 AM
I would disagree there, liquid. First off, using a lightsaber on a creature who is just Defending it's home and young against your intrusion, is a No no to me. Secondly, even if the jedi was there on a mission of mercy, such as the below saving a friend, and to get there, he would have had to pass through the room, just the fact the animal reared up and hissed before doing anything attacking, showed it was defending a space/group of young (standard animal lore would tell this).

<<<Another situation, this time theoretical, that deals with similar issues.
Suppose a Jedi was exploring a ruins, and he entered a room. There stands an animal, teeth bared and hissing. The Jedi doesnít leave, the animal attacks. The Jedi kills the animal. Then, he discovers that heís walked into the creatures nesting area, and there is a litter of baby animals in the corner. The creature was defending itís young. Would you award a DSP there?

I think I would, depending on the reasoning behind entering the room. If the Jedi went in there to rescue a captured comrade, thatís fine. But if theyíve just gone in there to nosy around, then I would think a DSP>>>

Manticore
5 September 2002, 06:22 AM
just to get into a strictly personal aspect of this issue: I think it depends upon your group, to be quite honest. Is your group a bunch of guys who played D&D or Shadowrun before this, and are therfore of the 'if it hisses it's a threat' type mentality? the reason I ask is that mine was, and we had many philisophical discussion about what was good and what was evil, and I always maintianed the idea that the Force is just Geroge Lucas' way of putting Zen into a western philosophy. (I could write a 20 page essay on why Han Solo SHOOTS FIRST, but i digress) Basically: Jedi's are not christian soldiers. LIfe and death are both aspects of the force. One is not good and one is not bad. Emotions, and the wieght we as sentients place upon these emotions are the good and evil. shall I bore you further and put you into a meditative trance?

the point I make is that you shouldn't think that me, you and a couple other guys on a web board are some sort of wise Jedi Council, cause we aren't any more moral than your PCs are, let me assure you. If Iím going to give a DSP I like to ask ďare you sure you want to do that?Ē in a suggestive way, and raise my eyebrows. If they fire back Ďyes, becauseÖí and they make a good point, then hey, who am I to say that they are wrong? At the same time, the rulebook makes an excellent point by saying something to the effect that ďif they have to spend an overly long time trying to justify their actions, then they most likely are commiting an evil act.Ē I like to think of my role as DM is more of an arbitrator, and not THE FORCE incarnate
;)

LiquidSaber
5 September 2002, 10:04 AM
I looked back at my post and I didn't find any concrete arguments, too vague. Sorry about that. :)


Secondly, even if the jedi was there on a mission of mercy, such as the below saving a friend, and to get there, he would have had to pass through the room, just the fact the animal reared up and hissed before doing anything attacking, showed it was defending a space/group of young (standard animal lore would tell this).

PotJ- pg. 33 Honor Life: "When confronted with a lfie or death struggle, however, a Jedi may have to kill to complete her mission... if the cause is justified-(1) if the Jedi is protecting others, (2) serving the will of the Force, or (3) even merely acting in self-defense-then the lightside is equally strengthened. "

If it is a mission of mercy then according to the book then to kill the beast is perfectly alright here Wolverine. But we don't know for sure so let's assume that the Jedi is there for some other reason and keep going.


First off, using a lightsaber on a creature who is just Defending it's home and young against your intrusion, is a No no to me.

I agree Wolverine but let's look at this point further. If the Jedi was in the ruins for selfish reasons then according to the book he receives a DS point (as I said in my previous post). However, most Jedi would be simply following the "will" of the force" which is what they do anytime they investigate force-related stuff, ruins, artifacts, etc. but this is a tad vague so we'll just assume he plopped himself in there for the fun of it.

Now the fuzzy part, in this particular case we have to decide whether the Jedi in the ruins was trully defending himself or in fact intruding on the animal and indirectly "attacking" the creature. Unfortunately a good argument can be for either case here (which we don't want because a smart player will see it immediately and will be difficult to convince otherwise).

So for the smart player we have to build an audequate argument to convince them (as I honestly believe if the Jedi in question was NOT on a mission & was not there investigating force emenations, then he should get a DSP).

The crux of our argument will lie with the pause the animal presented, an obvious "defensive" position. The Jedi should have taken a non-violent option because at that point violence was NOT guarunteed. And the GM should also tell the Jedi that the animal is acting "defensive" and that the Jedi notices this.

**Also provide a warning that IF the Jedi continues with their current course of in-action (just standing there) they threaten the life if the beast (the weak). ** [I think this is the most important part!]

At this point it should be obvious to the player that if they continue they are under threat of earnign a DSP. But I think it is very important for the GM to make such situations clear to the Jedi, as player mentality *cough* lightsaber syndrome p.32 PotJ *cough* does not always reflect the preceptions that the Jedi normally would, so it is the GM responsibility to attempt to make the PC aware. (Assigning DSPs p.34 PotJ).

Phew, hope that gets it. If there are any more arguments of this particular situation at this point, sheesh, I dunno what more could possibly be said. :p

Wedge in Red2
5 September 2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by LiquidSaber

Jedi PCs should never be held to the expectation of acting with wisdom at all times (cmon these are PCs were talking about afterall...).


Well, let me play devils advocate for a bit :). Why can't we expect wisdom from the Jedi at all times? If they have a decent Wisdom stat (and most Jedi's I've seen do), I think it's fair to expect them to act smart.

Too often I think Jedi characters in the RPG don't live up to the Jedi ideal set out in the movies. That's just my personal opinion, and not based on any games I've run, just the impression I get hearing about other Jedi characters.

My thoughts are that a Jedi needs to act smart. They are the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy.

Anyway, just a brief comment. I like the answers you guys have come up with in regard to the "creature protecting it's lair" problem, they're most insightful :)

Cheers,

Jon

LiquidSaber
6 September 2002, 08:48 AM
Hey Wedge why exactly was your particular Jedi at the ruins btw? Inquiring minds want to know...:p

wolverine
6 September 2002, 09:29 AM
PotJ- pg. 33 Honor Life: "When confronted with a lfie or death struggle, however, a Jedi may have to kill to complete her mission... if the cause is justified-(1) if the Jedi is protecting others, (2) serving the will of the Force, or (3) even merely acting in self-defense-then the lightside is equally strengthened. "
By that logic, a jedi could always kill anyone, by saying he is following the will of the force.

<<If it is a mission of mercy then according to the book then to kill the beast is perfectly alright here Wolverine>>
That seems illogical. Killing ok, while on a mission of mercy. SELF DEFENSE, yes.....

<<Now the fuzzy part, in this particular case we have to decide whether the Jedi in the ruins was trully defending himself or in fact intruding on the animal and indirectly "attacking" the creature. Unfortunately a good argument can be for either case here (which we don't want because a smart player will see it immediately and will be difficult to convince otherwise). >>
I cannot see how it is fuzzy. He was already intruding on the animal. The animal was the one defending himself. By pushing the issue, the jedi makes himself into the aggressor here... I also cannot see how a good argument could be made that the player was truely defending himself.

Fab
6 September 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by wolverine
PotJ- pg. 33 Honor Life: "When confronted with a lfie or death struggle, however, a Jedi may have to kill to complete her mission... if the cause is justified-(1) if the Jedi is protecting others, (2) serving the will of the Force, or (3) even merely acting in self-defense-then the lightside is equally strengthened. "
By that logic, a jedi could always kill anyone, by saying he is following the will of the force.

Saying that you're following the will of the Force and following the will of the Force are two completely different things. The ancient Aztecs thought they were appeasing the gods and causing the sun to rise each morning with human sacrifice, some 20,000 per year. So if you asked an Aztec he or she would say that they were following the will of the gods. In truth, all they were doing was killing off a bunch of people on a grand scale for centuries.

So just because a Jedi in one of my games says, "I was following the will of the Force," doesn't mean he or she gets away with the deed. I might very easily reply, "If that helps you sleep at night, good for you. Now mark down one Dark Side Point."

Prof. Tricky
6 September 2002, 12:20 PM
I don't think the situation really warrants a DSP.However,if the player consistently acts this way , you may want to consider the option.Remember , DSP is awarded for [or used as a penalty for] particularly malvolent behaviour , usuely agaist a sentient being.

LiquidSaber
6 September 2002, 02:57 PM
Alright Wedge, you devil you :D


Why can't we expect wisdom from the Jedi at all times? If they have a decent Wisdom stat (and most Jedi's I've seen do), I think it's fair to expect them to act smart.

Hehe, these are players we are talking about right? ;) Generally it's only when we find the veteran RPGer can we expect smart play most of the time.

But I think it is a very demanding role to play a Jedi and thus as GMs we should try not to be too hard on them if the player is making a conscious effort to try and fill those Jedi booties. For irresponsible players who try to play Jedi, let 'em have it! Hehe. I mean c'mon can we expect great wisdom from ourselves 9 to 5? Besides if they trip up and don't act all that wise that's when the GM steps in a says something.


By that logic, a jedi could always kill anyone, by saying he is following the will of the force.

I agree with Fab, of course a player can say so, but who will take them seriously? *chuckle* The GM decides who and what the will of the force is doing for their particular campaign, to be sure.


That seems illogical. Killing ok, while on a mission of mercy. SELF DEFENSE, yes.....

For the Greater Good. How is this illogical?


I cannot see how it is fuzzy. He was already intruding on the animal. The animal was the one defending himself. By pushing the issue, the jedi makes himself into the aggressor here... I also cannot see how a good argument could be made that the player was truely defending himself.

Well, I know a player or two who would argue thus: "I did not attack! I was only acting in self-defense when the beast attacked me! How in the world could I possibly get a darkside point.!? I didn't push any issue I was just looking around...the beast was the agressor here."

Anyhow, this would be an arguement I'd expect to hear. I addressed my counter-argument in my other post, but I'll not repeat. I'm sorry I didn't refer to this potential player argument in more detail in my last post. :(

wolverine
22 September 2002, 01:30 AM
Time to throw another one at y'all...

Situation: Terrorist/bad-guy/bounty hunter holding hostage, with a heavily modified heavy blaster pistol/sawn off shot gun WHAT EVER! to hostages head. Party tries to do someting. Gets to a 'stalemate', when one of the party, who is either a low powered jedi or just someone force sensitive, tries something, which forces the BG to shoot and kill the hostage.
Checking out the situation, further, they find out the hostaeg was a pregnant woman with triplets, and that trhe BG WOULD Have surrendered, if something was done. SO the hostage need not have died...

DSP or not.

Jim Williams
22 September 2002, 05:27 AM
I couldn't resist any longer, so here goes.

In the first situation, I'd enjoy the roleplaying aspect of a Jedi player telling a droid player that he can't kill to protect a droid or a '57 Chevy. I'd roar when he basically says, "You're just, um, property, dude. Don't worry, we'll fix you up." And here's where the d20 system messes up the Jedi---3PO has been brought down to -10 wounds at least once and repaired with no problem. The rules shouldn't have placed some kind of burden of "saving" a droid from destruction. Unless there is some kind of burgeoning sentience, the droid is not part of the Force and it's not worth killing something to "save" it.

As for the animal and its young and the terrorist/hostage situation...
Part of the Code urges a Jedi to embrace knowledge over ignorance (we all know this). When the Jedi acts from ignorance and thinks they are doing the right thing (defending themselves, trying to save the hostage), but things go terribly wrong, there is a lesson to be learned about knowledge and ignorance. But not a DSP. The DSPs come when the PC acts out of guilt and anger in other situations because they haven't come to grips with their mistake.
Also, a Jedi can not bear the responsibility for other's actions. The animal attacked...the Jedi defended. The bad guy killed the hostage...not the Jedi (unless the Jedi was just plain reckless and STUPID).
A good example of ignorance is the fact that not everyone may know what an animal is trying to communicate by its actions. Death follows due to misunderstanding on the part of both the Jedi (oops, protecting its young. Stang!) OR the animal (opps, it didn't want to kill my babies, just visiting. Hmmm, bet it tastes good though). It would warm my heart as a GM to see a player mark a rank down in Handle Animal as they seek to overcome their ignorance.

Random Axe
23 September 2002, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by wolverine
Situation: Terrorist/bad-guy/bounty hunter holding hostage, with a heavily modified heavy blaster pistol/sawn off shot gun WHAT EVER! to hostages head. Party tries to do someting. Gets to a 'stalemate', when one of the party, who is either a low powered jedi or just someone force sensitive, tries something, which forces the BG to shoot and kill the hostage.
Checking out the situation, further, they find out the hostaeg was a pregnant woman with triplets, and that trhe BG WOULD Have surrendered, if something was done. SO the hostage need not have died...

DSP or not.
NOT. By your own description, the party tried to act. The Jedi tried to save the hostage. Just so happened that it didn't work out the way they wanted. Makes for a great opportunity to guilt the player, but there is no DSP warranted. And it doesn't matter who the hostage was or that she was secretly pregnant, the force-sensitive person tried to help.

P-Za Lord
23 September 2002, 10:17 AM
In regards to the original post. There would be no DSP forthcoming for that situation.

Regarding the break-in and theft of the droid, there is no reason a Jedi cannot use subterfuge and sneakiness. Unless he specifically hated the speeder salesman and was going to get a secret thrill from imagining his face in the morning when he saw he was robbed, or he was angry at the speeder salesman for some reason (he was wiping the droid's memory, he wouldn't sell the droid, he insulted the Jedi) then he is just doing what is necessary for the situation. So without there being anger, hatred, or malice of some kind, there is no reason the dark side should be involved.

While the Jedi, and other characters might be liable for breaking laws within whatever town they were in, that is a completely different thing with an entirely different set of consequences than turning to the dark side.

Since examples are so prevalent let me try one:
You grew up on a wonderful planet. Clean air, smiling people, the general store always a had a jar of peppermint sticks on the counter for visitors to snack on. Your grew up and became a Jedi and travelled to Tattooine. You walk into town. It's different than home of course, people don't smile as much, there's more crime, the air isn't as good. But there is a jar of peppermint sticks out on the counter inside Watto's for customers.
So while Watto is out back looking for a part you requested, you are standing out front sucking on a peppermint stick watching the aliens go by. Turns out, peppermint sticks aren't free on Tattooine like they are at home. You just stole a peppermint stick, punishable by death.
No DSP for you. Unless DSP equals Death Sentence Penalty, which may be the case, what you did was not done out of spite, or hate.
Going further, let's say that you do find out it's a crime. Let's say while you're standing outside, your Twi'lek friend comes up and asks how the hell you could afford one of Watto's peppermint sticks. When you tell him, and he starts laughing at you, and informs you that you just stole that peppermint stick (a death penalty by the way.) It still doesn't matter what you do, you could go, "Oh shoot, I better not have this out in the open then." and stick it in your robe, you could almost choke then grab it and throw it under a porch, you could eat it quickly, you could turn around pay for the peppermint stick... you wouldn't get a DSP. UNLESS...unless that action or statement indicated hatred or anger (or fear), "Watto still owes me from that water-regulator he over-charged me for" is ok. "Watto deserves it, he's a filthy slaver," wouldn't be.

As for killing the guard beast, it wasn't helpless. It wasn't unarmed. It wasn't ambushed. It was a threat. A tangible, visible, and immediate threat. As someone else said earlier, unless the dog died because you wanted to show off how big and bad you were or to try and gain respect from the party (cause apparently they haven't started following your sagely Jedi wisdom yet) then it wasn't an act of the dark side.

As for the scenario with the beast guarding its young. There is nothing that prevents a Jedi from exploring ruins, so regardless of why he was there when he ran into the beast doesn't matter. If he entered a place for a dark-side reason, then he would have gotten a DSP at the point that decision was made, though it's hard to imagine a suitable reason that goes with this situation. But slaying a beast that tries to drive you off, even from its lair isn't the realm of the dark-side, unless your thoughts on the subject where, "Hiss at me?! Oh yeah, bring it on!"
No DSP for slaying the beast. It wasn't sleeping, it wouldn't let you pass. It was a threat, an immediate, visible threat.
As for walking past the corpse and seeing a nest of tiny critters. You may feel remorse. You may suddenly feel stupid, but stupidity isn't evil. Evil is looking at them and saying, "Shame your mom was dumb enough to tangle with me," and then continuing your exploration, or just slaying the baby creatures. To justify killing the baby creatures (in terms of the Force) they would have to be an actual, and present threat. Not just a future threat. Telling yourself that they will grow into killers in the future may soothe your conscience and allow you to justify it to yourself, you still get a DSP. You could always take them elsewhere and have them raised in captivity, or some other option.

Justifying an action to yourself, does not justify it to the Force. If you get a DSP for attempting to Force Strike a living creature, you get that point whether you used it on a serial killer or on a common crook. Whether it did 3 damage, or 18 damage. Whether he would have killed 20 more people if you hadn't done it, or whether he would have become the next messiah if you hadn't done it. This doesn't mean you can't earn more than 1 DSP at the same time, if you were angry, or acted in fear.

Some of you seem to think that the path of the Jedi is only path you can walk to stay away from the dark side. Failing the Jedi Code is not failing the force. Not living up to the Jedi Code doesn't make you a dark-sider any more than failing to become a police officer makes you a criminal. Being ignorant may be against the Jedi Code, but that is because the Jedi realized that ignorance is huge reason a lot of people act in fear or hatred. It is important to remember that the Jedi Code is not the rules of the Force. It is a philosophy, a guideline that teaches a very excellent method for sustaining yourself in the light-side of the Force. Remember that Jedi aren't the only ones who get Force Points...or Dark Side Points.