| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What I'd love to see (and probably never will because it would be so complicated) is a sort of ethical flow-chart that asks yes or no questions about the action a Jedi is going to take, with each question leading to a different question, finally ending in a simple yes/no answer for whether or not a character gets a DSP.
There could even be a yes/no/maybe result, with "maybe" reserved for those random grey area moments where an action is neither particularly good or evil, so the result is decided by a Willpower roll (indicating how well the Jedi understands himself and his own ethics).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I'd like to see is a somewhat more gradual method of handling the Dark Side. DPS are such a pain because one slip up and the player looses the character. So the Gm has to judge very carefully.
The Dark Side really isn't very "tempting" or seductive in the RPG at all, since the player has a chance of loosing his character witrh each DSP.
What I7d kinda like to seee would be DSPs not costing the character, but instead making it harder for the PC to resist temptations. With the latter being what eventually turns the character to evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | You seem to be the one who is holding the Jedi resposbile for knowledge of the game rules (and other things).
In my example, the character only knew that he saw a starving child and tried to help the chikld. You are the one who seems to think that the Jedi is somehow at fault for not knowing that his food has been poisioned. |
In your example, the character also appears to know that (1) the food was poisoned (as opposed to just being something the child happens to be allergic to), (2) that he wasn't given any warning as opposed to he just ignored or didn't notice a warning that was available through the force, and (3) that the food was poisoned intentionally by some third party. None of that information is obvious to the character in your example, but it is essential to most of the arguments people are making about the unfairness of holding the Jedi responsible.
| Quote: | | As fars a Jedi recieving precognitive warnings, that is mostly in the provence of the GM. A player has little to no input on such matters. |
And a character has little to no knowledge of which warnings he may just have missed. My point with metagame knowledge is the character doesn't know all the background detail. Until he finds it out, he should be confused, remorseful, and possibly doubting his connection to the force.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In your SWU, do the Jedi actually know the exact game rules for the Force as well as their own or other's force skill die codes or are the workings of the Force at least a bit mysterious? |
No, but they have some knoweledge of teh in universe workings of the Force, and can probably guage raltive proficiency through observation. Just like how pilots and aircraft designers would know about the law of gravity, aerodynamic drag, and other real world physics. THat Jedi are trained implies knowledge of and proficicency with, the Force. |
In that case the character probably does not know whether there was no warning or whether he just missed a warning. To me that should be important in the character's response.
| Quote: | | "Going Dark" is, and should be, a conscious decision. |
Well, no according to the rules. Once you have accumulated 2 DSPs the character has a 1/6 chance or randomly "going Dark."
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Both atgxtg and crmcneill have stated that the Jedi should pursue... |
Not true. I did not say the Jdi must hunt down the would be assassin. AThat would depend on other factors. The Jedi could be doing something more important. |
I didn't say must hunt down. "Should pursue" and "must hunt down" don't mean the same thing. I though you implied the Jedi should pursue the assassin. I apologize if that was not what you intended.
| Quote: | | I think you are trying to use the DSP mechanic to punish the Jedi PC for making a mistake, a laspe in judgement, or failing to prevent someone else from commiting evil. That's not what the mechanic is for. |
I am suggesting that the result of the Jedi's actions should be included in what we examine when trying to decide if a DSP is warranted. And I believe the rules do allow awarding a DSP for failing to try to prevent evil.
| Quote: | | How long have you been Gming? This is pretty basic stuff. |
37 years. How about you?
And if it is not already obvious, I don't find determining actual motives of characters "pretty basic stuff." I think looking at mutiple factors, including but not restricted to the result of the action, makes more sense than that either just taking the players word for it or the GM just taking a SWAG based on a gut feel of what the characters real motives were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bren"]In your example, the character also appears to know that (1) the food was poisoned (as opposed to just being something the child happens to be allergic to), (2) that he wasn't given any warning as opposed to he just ignored or didn't notice a warning that was available through the force, and (3) that the food was poisoned intentionally by some third party. [quote]
Yup. Quite true. But then, that is one of the perks in setting up the situation as an example. I get to define the conditions.. If the situation were differernt then so could the burden of responsibility.
| Quote: |
None of that information is obvious to the character in your example, but it is essential to most of the arguments people are making about the unfairness of holding the Jedi responsible. |
Nope. It doesn't matter if 1, and/or 3 are true. What matters is what the character knows, and his intetions in feeding the child. 2 might be a factor.
1)If the child dies by poison or allergic reaction makes no difference--unless the Jedi was aware of it. The child could choke to death on the food, or die of cholesterol.
2) The Jedi is not responsible for a warning he didn't get. Now he might, and probably would be respobible for ignoring a warning, That would imy that the Jedi was using the child as a guinea pig to test he food.
The Jedi would not be respobilse for what warning may or may not have been avaible though he Force. A jedi can hardly go though life checking every action through the Force for possible unforeseen consequence. That would be redicious, and also crippling. Eventually it bogs down to the point where the edin would need to check with the Force to see if he should check with the Force about checking with the Force.
You sinmply can't go though life doing a divination every time you are about to take any action.
3) Who, what, when, where, how ,or why the food meanged to get posioned has no bearing on if the Jedi derserves a DSP, unless the Jedi was aware of it, and deliberately fed the child posioned food.
| Quote: | | And a character has little to no knowledge of which warnings he may just have missed. My point with metagame knowledge is the character doesn't know all the background detail. Until he finds it out, he should be confused, remorseful, and possibly doubting his connection to the force. |
Fine, but none of that translates into a DSP. The Jedi won7t be happy about the situation, but he shouldn't end up killing the younglings atthe Jedi Temple because of it.
| Quote: | | In that case the character probably does not know whether there was no warning or whether he just missed a warning. To me that should be important in the character's response. |
Why? He can't go back in time and change the past. He has to be mindful of thepresent. The child got poisioned. Maybe the Jedi could have done something differently, but he can't change that now. He has to deal with the current situation. He might be remorseful, doubtful, upset, even angry.
But none of those actually merits a DSP. Not even anger. It is acting out of anger thanleads to the Dark Side.
I don7t expect a jedi to pickup every possible arning that might exist in the Force. Do you?
| Quote: | | Well, no according to the rules. Once you have accumulated 2 DSPs the character has a 1/6 chance or randomly "going Dark." |
Cause and effect. The character got those 2 DSPs by making a conscious decison to perform some action that resulted in his accumulating the DSPs. He didn't spin a wheel to get them. The PC choose to do something that he KNEW was evil (becuase the GM gave him a warning that he was going to get a DSP). That isn't random. Anymore than htitting someone with your lightsaber has a "random" chance of hurting them. Caue and effect.
| Quote: | | I didn't say must hunt down. "Should pursue" and "must hunt down" don't mean the same thing. I though you implied the Jedi should pursue the assassin. I apologize if that was not what you intended. |
No, I didn't intend that the Jedi had to puruse the killer. That would depned on other factors not given in the example. The jedi might have something more important to deal with. For instance, contacting some other people and making sure no ne else eats food from the same source, as it could be poisoned.
And BTW, If the Jedi actually forgets to tell the other PCs about the food, and one or more of them get poisoned, thas not evil-just very, very stupid.
| Quote: | | I am suggesting that the result of the Jedi's actions should be included in what we examine when trying to decide if a DSP is warranted. |
I think that is a bad suggestion. if the Jedi tries to do someting evil but flubs it, shouldn't he still get a DSP?
Orif the Jedi tries to stop evil, but is defeated, should he get a DSP?
Obi-wan helped to "rescue" Palaptine from Count Dooku, and inadvently restored a Sith lord to power over he Republic. Should he get a DSP for that!
| Quote: | | And I believe the rules do allow awarding a DSP for failing to try to prevent evil. |
Yes but:
1) The definition of that is somewhat vague, and the Jedi will, at times, need to let some evils go unchallenged in oder to fight other evils. Hence Qui-Gon can't just "overthrow" the Hutts on Tatooine, and has to let such evils continue.
2) The GM is upposed to give a warning before awarding a DSP, so the player has a chance to undersand what the "will of he Force" (GM) is on thisso he can do the right thing.
If it didn't work hat way, a Jedi would perpectually be getting DSPs whenever he had to make a decision between two evils. For instance, what if a jedi knows somebody has been framed for a crime, but he cannot prove it. On he one hand,the Jedi is obligated to help the innocent person aginst the evil of injustice. on the other hand, if the Jedi circumvents the law, he is also doing evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | In your example, the character also appears to know that (1) the food was poisoned (as opposed to just being something the child happens to be allergic to) |
Did I miss something? The original example was pretty basic, and I don't recall it ever saying that the Jedi character knew the food was poisoned.
| Quote: | | (2) that he wasn't given any warning as opposed to he just ignored or didn't notice a warning that was available through the force |
At this point, you seem to be getting into metagame knowledge again. The example doesn't specify whether he never got the information or if he ignored it, but you seem to be assuming the worst case scenario; that the Jedi got some sort of warning or sense of danger from the plate of food, yet chose to ignore it and hand that food to an innocent child, with the end result that that child was poisoned. In that scenario, yes, the Jedi would most certainly deserve a DSP.
Speaking for myself, however, I discard that scenario as highly unlikely. Why? Because he is a Jedi, and to so callously ignore the warnings of the Force and place an innocent in danger is so far outside of a Jedi's normal behavior as to be entirely incredible. A Dark Jedi or a Sith might act in such a fashion, and no one would be surprised by it in the slightest, but the scenario specified Jedi, not Dark Jedi or Sith. Based on a Jedi's known standards of behavior, it is far more likely that (based on the wording of the scenario), he gave his own food to someone in need because he had no warning from the Force that such an act could possibly be dangerous.
IMO, your argument would be more successful if you based the DSP on what he does after the poisoning occurs. Does he act on impulse or does he seek the guidance of the Force so that he can act calmly? Does he leave the child to die and run off in search of the poisoner, or does he use his Force abilities to try to heal the child? At this point, if I were GM'ing and the Jedi didn't have Detoxify Poison in Another as a Force ability, I would allow him to spend a Force Point and use Detoxify Poison to try to heal the child. And if he failed that roll, I still wouldn't give him a DSP, because he was trying to save the child's life.
| Quote: | | and (3) that the food was poisoned intentionally by some third party. |
As opposed to what? If the Jedi didn't know about the poison and perhaps assumed the child was having an allergic reaction or he was choking (Telekinetic Heimlich Maneuver, anyone?), from his own POV, he would be even less responsible than if he knew it was poison. In either case, there are actions he could take to try to save the child's life. And in either case, it would still be completely unfair to hit him with a DSP for failing to prevent an evil act that he had no prior knowledge of.
| Quote: | | None of that information is obvious to the character in your example, but it is essential to most of the arguments people are making about the unfairness of holding the Jedi responsible. |
I fail to see how the absence of information has any bearing on the character earning a DSP. The distinction between what the player knows and what the character knows is immaterial here. The player knows only that his character is performing a selfless act by giving a starving child some food. Even if the GM told him to roll Sense or Perception but still never told him what the roll was about, a good roleplayer would not be able to use that metagame premonition to suddenly yank the food away from the child. Instead, he has to continue on with his declared action.
The character, on the other hand, only knows that he is behaving as a Jedi should, by helping those in need. Absent any warning from the GM (by way of the Force), he would be just as surprised as anyone when the child starts exhibiting symptoms of poisoning. A Jedi's knee-jerk reaction in such a situation should be to try to save the life of the poisoned child. Once that task is complete (for good or for ill), the Jedi's next act should be to track down the source of the poison (absent any mission of greater importance). I'd guess that it would be pretty easy for a Jedi to track down the source of the poison (the food) and realize that it was he himself who was the target and work his way back from there.
I'm more curious as to why you are so insistent on placing the blame on the Jedi in this scenario, especially when the original scenario gave us so little information to go on. There is no indication that the Jedi behaved in any way deserving of a DSP, yet you seem determined to hang one around his neck for a simple, tragic mistake.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Did I miss something? The original example was pretty basic, and I don't recall it ever saying that the Jedi character knew the food was poisoned. |
No. What happened was that since I created the scene with no context, everything that I didn't lock down has been streched for any possible "what if" or "unknown".
But, since I created the example, and in an effort to lock this stuation down I say that:
1) The Jedi DID NOT have any knowledge of the posion
2) The jedi DID NOT have any reason to supect the food.In fact, Yoda gave it to him, along with a chew stick before the Jedi left the Temple.
3) The child has no previous known allegies.
4) The food packed did not have a "this product may contain peanuts" warning nor a "may contained uncooked food particles" warning.
5) The food did not contain saccharine, Yellow #5,or any carcinogen.
6) The poisoner specifically treated the food with posion in order to kill the Jedi.
7) Yoda IS NOT the poisoner.
As far as #2 goes. I
| Quote: | | Speaking for myself, however, I discard that scenario as highly unlikely. Why? Because he is a Jedi, and to so callously ignore the warnings of the Force and place an innocent in danger is so far outside of a Jedi's normal behavior as to be entirely incredible. |
BINGO! Things are being stretched to absurd levels. I didn't mention if the child was on a religious fast and that offering him food was a grave cultural insult, either. Nor that the child was so shy that if anyone offered him food he7d die of right on the spot.
| Quote: | | a And in either case, it would still be completely unfair to hit him with a DSP for failing to prevent an evil act that he had no prior knowledge of. |
Exactly. Doubly unfair since the Gmis th eone who set up this situation in the first place. If the kid has an allergy, asthma, rabies, or bubonic plague, etc. are all becuase he GM gaveit to him. So if the child dies becuase of some obscue allergy to the food given to him, which in turn was given to the Jedi in the first place y the Gm, then who is to blame?
It7s lioke the Good Samartin law. The Jedi was trying to help, but thengs just went horribly wrong.
| Quote: | | I fail to see how the absence of information has any bearing on the character earning a DSP. |
Me too. Just because a player or character was ignorant does not mean that they were doing evil. Someone shouldn't get a DSP because they failed a skill roll, or failed to ask for one. It would be like giving someone a DSP for failing a first aid roll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey. if the starving kid steals the posioned froom drom the Jedi, can we blame that on the Jedi, too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Hey. if the starving kid steals the posioned froom drom the Jedi, can we blame that on the Jedi, too? |
That depends. Did the Jedi try and fail to stop him from stealing the food (failing to prevent an act that caused another harm)? That might be DSP worthy. And how did he try to stop him? If he used TK to attack the thief with an object, knocking him down and indirectly saving his life, he would still get a DSP for using the Force to attack. However, if he just lopped off the thief's arms and legs with a lightsaber, saving his life but sentencing him to a life of relative helplessness as a quadruple amputee, he wouldn't get a DSP. Because WEG says so.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, really, I'm serious..... No, I'm kidding.... No, really, I'm serious   
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | 2) The jedi DID NOT have any reason to supect the food.In fact, Yoda gave it to him, along with a chew stick before the Jedi left the Temple.
6) The poisoner specifically treated the food with posion in order to kill the Jedi.
7) Yoda IS NOT the poisoner. |
OK, I'm with you in general, but this point is pushing it. How did the poisoned food make it by Yoda? And who gave it to Yoda to give to the Jedi, yet failed to be detected as a threat by Yoda? That's a whole new can of worms that you don't want to get into. Better to simply say that the Jedi received the food from a non-threatening source, like a charity soup kitchen or some random fast food place, where the odds of a poisoner targeting a specific person would be exceedingly high, but not impossible.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok let's look at atgxtg's Jedi samaritan example. For ease of writing, to avoid long quoting, and because I find it funny: A = atgxtg, B = Bren, and C = crmcneil.
What happens? The Jedi PC gives a child food. The child dies.
A and C seem perturbed that B hypothesized that the Jedi in the example might either (i) have had some indication through the force of danger or (ii) known that he has an enemy who might use poison to kill him and thus may be some responsibility for the child's death.
People are doing a lot of interpretation and A and C seem to like their interpretations best. No surprise there. People naturally like their own interpretation best. I often like my interpretations best. 
How would this actually play out in a face-to-face table-top RPG?
First the PC would not know the child is starving at first glance. The child may look hungry, malnourished, etc. but that does not necessarily equal starving. However a Jedi could use something like life sense to determine the child is actually starving. But that is a detail A did not provide. In his description, A jumped straight to the child is starving. Is this in-game knowledge or metagame knowledge? I can't tell. But since we are given no indication the Jedi did any of those things, I guess it must be out-of-character knowledge.
Second we are told the food is poisoned by someone after the Jedi. How does the PC know that? No detail is provided. The Jedi could have it analyzed, could do some tests - maybe even on himself if he has detoxify poison, but none of those things are mentioned and we don't know that any of that happened. Yet suddenly some folks have the Jedi chasing down the assassin. How did the Jedi know the food was poisoned and how did he even know there was an assassin? Is this game knowledge or metagame knowledge? Again, I can't tell. But we are given no information about the Jedi doing anything to ascertain that there was a poisoner, so I guess he doesn't know this either.
I speculated that the Jedi might have prior knowledge that he has annoyed someone who is known to use poison. That seemed to me to be consistent with the fact that the Jedi somehow knows the child was poisoned and that there is a poisoner to pursue. That didn't seem a huge logical leap since in RPGs the PCs often make enemies and know that they have made enemies. It is often a key plot point. In game knowledge? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I can't tell since like nearly everything else we aren't given any information about this.
The player knows the GM didn't give him a clear warning of danger - or at least no mention of a warning is given in the short description. Clearly knowing that the GM didn't give a warning is out of game knowledge. In game there is no GM. There is the Force. The PC doesn't recall knowing there was danger. Fine. But is that because the Jedi wasn't calm enough? His mind wasn't still enough to gain knowledge from the force? There is a good chance that in-game the PC doesn't know the answer to this question. OK, what then?
If it was my PC, my PC might be concerned about how he missed something this important. After all the deadly food was right in the palm of his hand. How could he possibly be a Jedi and miss that? To me those are possible in-character responses based on what we know that the Jedi knows. Now it seems that other folks appear to want to just short circuit all that because OOC the player and the GM already know there was a poisoner responsible for the poison food and that the poisoner was after the Jedi.
I guess this little example just seem less obvious to me - since we are given so little background - than it is to A and C.
Does any of these interpretations justify a DSP for the Jedi? Well A's and C's clearly do not. Do my various intepretations? I don't think I ever said that they must result in a DSP. I said that we should look at the result along with other factors. So, based on what we know and might speculate, I would say, probably not. But I say probably, because I want the additional detail of what the Jedi knew or should have known before I decide. And I think a dead child sets the explanatory bar a bit higher than a dead rat or no dead beings at all. But if we just assume intention is all that matters and the players description of intention is the only or best guide, then it doesn't matter if their is a dead child, a dead rat, or no death at all. And that seems a very peculiar form of ethics to me.
Jedi have a lot of power in SW. And with that power, I think they should have a lot of responsibility. That's one of the reasons that I as a GM don't feel required to hold the Jedi player's hand at every step of the way and act as an extra conscience warning them of every chance of a DSP before they act. Even though the RAW suggests that. Given that in 10 years of play there have been a total of I think 3 DSPs acquired by 4-5 Jedi in our SWU - I think my system works pretty well and isn't unfair to the players or to their characters. You are of course free to have different opinions.
I am curious, A, why you seem to feel that only concious, active evil should result in a DSP? I haven't re-read the rules this month, but I thought that failing to try to prevent evil action also resulted in a DSP. Am I misrecalling this, or is there some reason you choose to ignore that part of the RAW while maintaining the warning requirement of the RAW? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
What would the GMhad done if the Jedi had, saved the wounded people, blown his cover, and it led to the deaths of others. Award a DSP?
This situation loos to me like a catch-22 trap set by the GM. The POC is forced between maintaining his cover (and getting a DSP)or blowing his mission.. |
| crmcneill wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | In fact, an argument could be made that the Jedi7s desire to help the injured at the expense of the greater good (his mission) is selfish. |
Indeed. |
From what i remember, he DID set it up sort of a catch 22, but it was also to show the player of jedi, being all powerful DOES have its drawbacks, as there WILL inevitably be situations that crop up that you might be "damned if you do, Damned if you don't"...
| crmcneill wrote: |
The problem with simple, general examples is that the devil is in the details. Was the Jedi on a mission whose success would be jeopardized by stopping to help? Would using Accelerate Another's Healing have drawn attention to the fact that there was a Jedi in the area? Or was the Jedi maintaining his cover purely out of selfish or cowardly reasons? IMO, these are what truly decide whether or not a character should get a DSP. |
Was he on a mission? No. The Imps had come to the planet the pc's were hiding out on after they got done with a mission, trying to track them down. So he was staying "under cover" to stay off their radar.
Would using Accel heal have marked him? Yes since the imp forces had jedi seakers amongst their ranks.
| crmcneill wrote: | What I'd love to see (and probably never will because it would be so complicated) is a sort of ethical flow-chart that asks yes or no questions about the action a Jedi is going to take, with each question leading to a different question, finally ending in a simple yes/no answer for whether or not a character gets a DSP.
There could even be a yes/no/maybe result, with "maybe" reserved for those random grey area moments where an action is neither particularly good or evil, so the result is decided by a Willpower roll (indicating how well the Jedi understands himself and his own ethics). |
I would love something like that, though it would have to have a lot of different things on it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Was he on a mission? No. The Imps had come to the planet the pc's were hiding out on after they got done with a mission, trying to track them down. So he was staying "under cover" to stay off their radar. |
Well this is all a bit out of context since we aren't in the game, but since there was no active mission placed in jeopardy the mere fact of risk to the Jedi himself is not a very compelling reason for the Jedi failing to even try to help save someone else.
Accelerate healing is only one possible solution. The Jedi could have tried using medpacs - which wouldn't have specifically alerted the Jedi hunters. He could have tried first aid, assuming he was at least decent with the skill. He could have persuaded a friend with a better first aid or medicine skill to help them. He could have called an ambulance or gone for a doctor - assuming there were any on the planet. He could have called on other bystanders to help - "is there a doctor in the house?" He could have stopped to determine if their injury was life threatening before going on. He could have distracted any nearby Imperials while his friends helped the injured or vice versa. If he couldn't do anything else, he could have held their hand and comforted them with his presence as they passed away - assuming their wounds were mortal.
Any of those choices seem better than the cowardly behavior of callously just walking on by and continuing to hide himself from the Empire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IIRC, the jedi had 5d+2 in a specialty of first aid (humans) and (A) Medicine at 2d... and always carried a trio of med packs.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I am curious, A, why you seem to feel that only concious, active evil should result in a DSP? I haven't re-read the rules this month, but I thought that failing to try to prevent evil action also resulted in a DSP. Am I misrecalling this, or is there some reason you choose to ignore that part of the RAW while maintaining the warning requirement of the RAW? |
I was writing a response and I found it turning into a quote war, which I'm trying to stay away from, so I'm going to keep it short. The key to "failing to try" is that one must have prior knowledge in order to try. You can invent all kinds of supposed reasons why the Jedi was supposed to know about the threat, but the original example is quite specific that "the Jedi was unaware of that when he gave the child the food." If the Jedi knew there was a threat and still failed to try, DSP time. In this scenario, he didn't, and therefore he lacked the information he needed to even be able to "try". He would have multiple options available after the fact, including healing the child with the Force (or helping him hang on until the medics arrive), analyzing the food for poison, deducing who might've slipped the poison into his food and when (as well as determining which enemy from his past is most likely responsible), and tracking that person down. All of these things are possible. After the boy is poisoned. Before that occurs, he has no knowledge of the poison, therefore, he can't act. As to why he had no advanced knowledge? Unknown. Maybe he flubbed a roll on Danger Sense. Maybe the GM screwed up and forgot to give him a "vision" from the Force warning of the danger.
In essence, you seem to be proposing that a Jedi receive a DSP as a result of a failed dice roll, or simply by GM decree (or GM error). Several months back, I proposed a DSP system based on Willpower rolls, which you vehemently opposed on the grounds that it would take control of the character out of the player's hands, and that earning a DSP while taking risky action should be based solely on mutual discussion and cooperation between the GM and the player. From where I stand, it seems as though you have reversed your position, and I'm curious as to why.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | IIRC, the jedi had 5d+2 in a specialty of first aid (humans) and (A) Medicine at 2d... and always carried a trio of med packs. |
So he could've stayed and used his medical skills without using the Force at all. Yeah, I'd call that DSP territory.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
