| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naaman wrote: | | [However, danger is not the causing of harm, it is elevating the risk of harm. Driving drunk IS dangerous. Getting drunk without having a DD or cab money is irresponsible. It is reasonable to expect a drunk person to know that he is too drunk to drive. Or, at the very least, BEFORE he gets drunk, he already KNOWS that it's illegal and dangerous, so he has the sober-minded responsibility to make arrangement for his post-drinking transportation. Even still, a drunk person knows when he's had too much to drive. On that basis, it's clear that if he gets behind the wheel, he is WILLFULLY elevating the risk of harm to innocents. DSP. |
Nope. No DSP. You don't get DSps by elevating risk, but by deliberaly causing harm. If you went with evelating risk, then all the Jedi in the films would have gone dark. Practically every exciting scene in the films invloves the Jedi elevatin the risk. Just look at the chase scne through Corsucant in AOTC. Obi-wan and Anakin are clearlyputting the wellbeing of other "people" at risk by jiumping onto speeders and reckless driving.
Hey, by my thinking, the vast majority of architects and engineers in the Star Wars Universe are guilty of criminal negligence way beyond that of a drunk driver. All those exposed platforms and catwalks with no or insufficient rails, exposed shafts, and open airspeeders are practically guaranteeing an increase in risk.
[quote]
As for the comment about "only a sith deals in absolutes." That comment was just a stupid attempt by Lucas to inject his political views into the movies. [quote]
As opposed to all the "smart" attempts he makes to inject his political, social and religius views into the films? Sorry, but Star Wars is his creation, and he decided how the Force works.
| Quote: |
In fact, the comment itself is an oxymoron, considering it was a Jedi who said it: "ONLY a sith deals in absolutes." That is a Jedi who absolutely believes that it IS evil to view things in black and white (not to mention that the Jedi code is full of the "black and white": the force should be used for knowledge and defense, never for attack; there is no try. Do, or do not). Sorry, but that line was a total load of BS that didn't really have a place in the movie. |
So, YOU arethe one who gets todecide what Lucas should be able to put in his movies and how we should intepret them. Sorry, I thought Lucas could put whatever he wants in his films, andt hat we are supposed to use the films as our guidelines.
And that "supid statement" is very much in line with the "certain point of view" talk that takes place in ROTJ. So basically, you are saying that Lucas in wrong, and that things should work your way.
I disagree. The point here isn't what is right or wrong to us, but what is evil in Star Wars, according to the Force.
Azal brought up a very good point about cultural values. Different culutres have differnt views on things. And those views change over time. Things like slavery and resposnsiblity for actions while intoxicated or insamne vary from culture to culture and even within a culture over time.
The idea here isn't for us to enforce out\r our moral codeonto the Jedi, but to try to interpret and enforce the moral code "of the Force" that we see in the films.
Now, the very strict code that you and some others are suggesting just doesn't match up with the films. All the Jedi fall far short of it. In largepart becuase the script requires it. The Jedi must fall to the Sith in the prequel, and the nature of an action film requires a lot of risk. If the Jedi were to act as respsonsibly as you thing they should, you couldn't have adventures like in the films.
Personally, I have majormorality issues with the conceptts of taking teenage Padawans into war, or using a slave/clone army. IMO both are far worse than drunk driving. But neither is considered "evil" according to the tenets of the Force, or else the Jedi couldn7t have done it without all turing to the Dark Side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, let me say that this is a very interesting conversation. And I want to acknowledge that the counter points mentioned from the movies are solid evidence that I might be wrong. The point of what I am saying below is to establish a few things:
1. For me, this conversation has gone beyond Star Wars and is about people discussing their personal philosophies.
2. As a GM, I find that it is important to make the players understand that a DSP is a serious thing, and that a hack and slash playstyle will result in the accumulation of DSPs.
3. I like to preserve the righteousness of Jedi, while creating situations that require the Jedi to really evaluate what it costs to take the high road. Playing a Jedi should not be easy, and as we see in the movies, it is not. Some of them fail, even if only temporarily (such as Luke did).
With that, here's my retort:
Your comparison of drunk driving to construction work is invalid. Construction workers can choose to walk on a catwalk or not. If a person chooses to walk on a preexisting catwalk without making it safe to walk on, then he is elevating his own risk. A drunk driver elevates the risk to innocent people through his choices and actions. DSP.
The chase scene in Episode II would not get a DSP because the Jedi were chasing an assassin just like the police would do. The assassin's actions of criminal evasion may not warrant a DSP, but they certainly could contribute to a collective set of attributes that equate to being evil, in which case, the assassin would get a DSP (or, would already have DSPs) on that basis. And, anyone who was hurt as a result of that criminal evasion would be at the fault of the Assassin, not the Jedi. The Jedi had the legal authority and obligation to apprehend the assassin. If the Jedi had conducted the chase WITH NO REGARD to the safety of innocents (knocking them out of the way for example) then they, too would get a DSP. But in this case, the elevation of risk is outweighed by the importance of catching a criminal while they still have a reasonable chance to do so. I can think of one or two scenarios where the risks of driving drunk are outweighed by the need to go somewhere, but for the basics of whether the typical drunk driver is committing evil, I would say that he is (the ACT of driving may not be evil, but the selfishness that is motivating that act is. The negligence that saturates the act is also evil).
My only point with all of this is that INTENT is the determining factor of whether someone gets a DSP, regardless of the results of the action. Murder gets a DSP, attempting murder gets a DSP. Allowing murder gets a DSP. Refusing to take action to prevent potential loss of innocent life (i.e. leaving a loaded gun where a child could get it) is evil because it is disregard for the preciousness of life. DSP. Refusing to do your duty (as a Jedi): DSP. Chopping off Dooku's head with two lightsabers: Priceless.
The "certain point of view" doctrine isn't really a question of good and evil, because if you want to say that "certain point of view" can be used to avoid a darkside point, then we would have to argue that the Sith are not evil, since Palpatine uses the same logic in episode III when he's talking to Anakin about the difference between Sith and Jedi. The "point of view" doctrine is more a tool to justify evil.
Obi-Wan used it in ANH with wisdom in order to avoid having Luke crumble into a crying mess. We can tell that Obi-Wan was aware of the high likelihood that Luke would confront Vader and find out about his lineage as we watch the movie (this may have even been his plan). WHY does Obi-Wan let Vader win? He knows that Luke can be trained by Yoda, and confront Vader later. A teacher sometimes withholds information that is not helpful to the development of his pupil until the time is right. Also, this whole scenario is an argument of semantics. "Anakin" was symbolically killed when he became Darth Vader. In effect, he created a new identity.
And while I will concede that Lucas is the god of the Star Wars universe, I still don't believe that ANY statement that IS absolute is a valid statement. That's why I said a very small grey area. There must be allowances made for the questionable acts. Questionable is just that: undetermined until investigated. At the end of the day, I would say that the majority of questionable acts are a result of the evil that was intended (even if that evil is just complacency or a lack of regard for the value of life or the desire to neglect one's duty to do good).
After all this conversation, I'm starting to better understand Bren's point of view: the result should, perhaps contribute to the consideration of whether to give a DSP, since different people have different ways of defining the term "evil." Ultimately, it's up to the GM, not George Lucas, whether someone gets a DSP. Although, I think that the examples Bren provided were ill-conceived to illustrate his point. It may be that I'm starting to agree with him, but for different reasons than what he uses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | The point of what I am saying below is to establish a few things:
1. For me, this conversation has gone beyond Star Wars and is about people discussing their personal philosophies. | Quote: |
That's toobad. I7m trying to run the philophy of the films, as best as I can understand them.
| Quote: |
2. As a GM, I find that it is important to make the players understand that a DSP is a serious thing, and that a hack and slash playstyle will result in the accumulation of DSPs. |
But Star Wars is a "hack 7n Slash" setting. There is lots of conflict and death. If you want to have fast moving adventures, you need to let some things slide. The RAW notes this and also that the Gm should let slightly flawed plans work in order to avoid bogging the game down with long tactical planning. I think the same needs to be done with Jedi morality. Othwerwise the PCs will never drawthier lightsabers. While resovling all situations with peaceful negtions is admirable, it isn7t Star Wars.
| Quote: |
3. I like to preserve the righteousness of Jedi, while creating situations that require the Jedi to really evaluate what it costs to take the high road. Playing a Jedi should not be easy, and as we see in the movies, it is not. Some of them fail, even if only temporarily (such as Luke did). |
Yeahm, but that isn't whatthe DSP mechanic is for. A jedi who tries to do the right thing, but fails shoudln''t become an agent of evil. You seem to want to use DSps as a punishment, a sort of disciplnary tool for failure. That is not what it is for. it is there for turning a character to evil.
Keep in mind every DSp (save the first) is a chance for the player to loose his character to the GM. No Gm should give out a DSP lightly.
| Quote: |
Your comparison of drunk driving to construction work is invalid. Construction workers can choose to walk on a catwalk or not. |
No, you just drew the wrong inference. I never said construct workers, I said archtects andengineers. All through the films we see these impressive cityscapes with exposed catwalks, and long drops. Realsitcally people would trip sometimes and fall to thier deaths becuase the designs are unsafe. Inthe real world that would be actinable. My point is that since the Republic and the Jedi allow such to exist, they must not be considered Evil.
| Quote: |
The chase scene in Episode II would not get a DSP because the Jedi were chasing an assassin |
Nope. That doesn't cut it. The ends d not justify the means.
| Quote: |
just like the police would do. |
Not at all. The police would:
1) use signlas and sirens to alert others to thier precence, minimizing the danger.
2) Call in back up and try to block off the assasiin to prevent an accident.
3) Fall back and set up some sort of road block or just track the assassin.
It is badpolice procedre to put the general populace at greater risk.
|
| Quote: |
The assassin's actions of criminal evasion may not warrant a DSP, but they certainly could contribute to a collective set of attributes that equate to being evil, in which case, the assassin would get a DSP |
No. You don7t get DSPs for BEIGN evil. only for DOING evil. It isn7t that someone is evil so they get DSps, it is that some one DOES evil so they get DSPs. It doesn7t matterif you are Jack the Ripper or Mother Teresa, it is what you DO that counts.
That said, an assasin for hire is probably DOING things that deserse DSPs. But that:s moot, since the character probably isn't a PC, anyway.
| Quote: |
(or, would already have DSPs) on that basis. And, anyone who was hurt as a result of that criminal evasion would be at the fault of the Assassin, not the Jedi. |
Probably. But the assassin does not absove the Jedi of repsobility. if Anakin forces somebody out of thier lane and into a building, Anakin is at least partially resposible. Not that he would get a DSP for it (unless he doingit deliberaly and enjoyingit).
| Quote: |
The Jedi had the legal authority and obligation to apprehend the assassin. |
Actually they don't. They were charged with protecting Senator Amadala. Had Jango stopped by and tossed a thermal detonator into Amadala's room and killed her, both Jedi would have been in deep trouble. They never should have left her alone. The repsoble ting todo would have been to call the police, and leave at least one Jedi with Padme. They abandoned their charge to engage is a reckless chase. They did wrong and should have been chatised forthier actions. But they didn't deserve a DSP.
| Quote: |
If the Jedi had conducted the chase WITH NO REGARD to the safety of innocents (knocking them out of the way for example) then they, too would get a DSP. |
Just what is NO REGARD. Pushing people out of the way? Not really. Okay, maybe if they were pussing people off those death trap catwalks.
| Quote: |
But in this case, the elevation of risk is outweighed by the importance of catching a criminal while they still have a reasonable chance to do so. |
Is it? The evelation of risk to Padme was inexcusable. They really had no way of knowing that the "globe" would go right back to the assassin. Coom sense would suggest otherwise. And that leaving Padme alone was a bad idea. And that a trapped gunman in a public place is to be avoided.
| Quote: |
I can think of one or two scenarios where the risks of driving drunk are outweighed by the need to go somewhere, but for the basics of whether the typical drunk driver is committing evil, I would say that he is (the ACT of driving may not be evil, but the selfishness that is motivating that act is. The negligence that saturates the act is also evil). |
Being selfish isn't necessarily being evil.
| Quote: |
My only point with all of this is that INTENT is the determining factor of whether someone gets a DSP, regardless of the results of the action. |
Yes. Exactly.
| Quote: |
Refusing to take action to prevent potential loss of innocent life (i.e. leaving a loaded gun where a child could get it) is evil |
Nope. And sometimes itmight even be necessary. For instance, there are things like slavery permitted in Hutt space. A Jedi probably doesn't condone slavery, but if he were to act against it, it could drag the Reblic into a war. So sometimes a Jedi must let some things slide.
Another thing you seem to fail to grasp is that, since INTENT is the key factor, then if the Jedi did not INTEND to harman innocent, e is not vulnerabel to a DSP. So if the Jedi was shortsighted enough NOT TO SEE that drunk driving was putting people at risk, then he wouldn't be liable to a DSP.
In fact, A drunk Jedi (assuming he doesn7t detox), if probably a better pilot than most people anyway.
| Quote: |
The "certain point of view" doctrine isn't really a question of good and evil, because if you want to say that "certain point of view" can be used to avoid a darkside point, then we would have to argue that the Sith are not evil, since Palpatine uses the same logic in episode III when he's talking to Anakin about the difference between Sith and Jedi. The "point of view" doctrine is more a tool to justify evil. |
The point is, in life you rarely have things spelledout in Black & White. And no one is perfect. Hence the point of view argument. That Obi-wan and Yoda were not consumed by the Dark Side is proof that they must have been permitted to do what they did without racking up lots of DSPs.
Obi-Wan used it in ANH with wisdom in order to avoid having Luke crumble into a crying mess. We can tell that Obi-Wan was aware of the high likelihood that Luke would confront Vader and find out about his lineage as we watch the movie (this may have even been his plan). WHY does Obi-Wan let Vader win? He knows that Luke can be trained by Yoda, and confront Vader later. A teacher sometimes withholds information that is not helpful to the development of his pupil until the time is right. Also, this whole scenario is an argument of semantics. "Anakin" was symbolically killed when he became Darth Vader. In effect, he created a new identity.
And while I will concede that Lucas is the god of the Star Wars universe, I still don't believe that ANY statement that IS absolute is a valid statement. That's why I said a very small grey area. There must be allowances made for the questionable acts. Questionable is just that: undetermined until investigated. At the end of the day, I would say that the majority of questionable acts are a result of the evil that was intended (even if that evil is just complacency or a lack of regard for the value of life or the desire to neglect one's duty to do good).
After all this conversation, I'm starting to better understand Bren's point of view: the result should, perhaps contribute to the consideration of whether to give a DSP, since different people have different ways of defining the term "evil." Ultimately, it's up to the GM, not George Lucas, whether someone gets a DSP. Although, I think that the examples Bren provided were ill-conceived to illustrate his point. It may be that I'm starting to agree with him, but for different reasons than what he uses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | With regards to murder vs. manslaughter: |
Remember, you can't have manslaughter without laughter... 
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
true dat
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"No. You don7t get DSPs for BEIGN evil. only for DOING evil. It isn7t that someone is evil so they get DSps, it is that some one DOES evil so they get DSPs. It doesn7t matterif you are Jack the Ripper or Mother Teresa, it is what you DO that counts. "
Ah HA!! Here is why we think we are disagreeing. You seem to think that I'm saying that having wicked feelings warrants a darkside point. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that acting on or nurturing those wicked feelings warrants a darkside point. An evil person does evil. A good person does not. A good person may occasionally get a DSP for doing something evil. Whether he atones for it or not will reveal whether he is truly evil, or merely caved in to temptation that one time. If DSPs are awarded for intent, then being evil does in fact get you a DSP. Your logic here would actually suggest that you are the one who uses DSPs as a tool to punish a player, rather than to represent the deeper, underlying motives of the character.
You also said that selfishness isn't evil. I agree. However, evil IS selfish (kinda like, not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles). A Jedi acting for selfish reasons in a context that brings potential harm to others is worthy of a DSP.
Also note that I avoided the use of the word "failure" and chose the word "refusal." And note that no-one is forcing anyone to walk around near the edge of the platform in Cloud City. Choosing to play at the edge of a high rise is the choice of the "victim." Allowing a child to play around there is the negligence of the parent. There is a difference.
A Jedi should only ignite his lightsaber when he is willing to kill and only then, in defense of life. Note that he may try to lop off an arm instead of kill, but he must be willing for the person he cut to die if he is going to cut at all. Any time the Jedi uses lethal force other than that MAY be worthy of a DSP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
You also said that selfishness isn't evil. I agree. However, evil IS selfish (kinda like, not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles). A Jedi acting for selfish reasons in a context that brings potential harm to others is worthy of a DSP. |
I think you may be confusing the symptom and the disease. Evil isn't inherently selfish. It's much closer to the truth to say selfishness is inherently evil. Evil people are selfish, but it's not the evil that makes them selfish, it's the selfishness that makes them evil. If a person allows that selfishness to overwhelm their morals self control, they begin to behave in an evil fashion.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's what I'm trying to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
Involuntary manslaughter is when you have a legal duty to safeguard a life and fail to do so through negligence. This represents a disregard for life/safety and warrants a DSP, since all Jedi are charged to protect innocent life. It should be noted that the Jedi should only get a DSP if he had an opportunity to intervene and CHOSE not to do so.
|
I have heard of one gm who actually sprung something akin to the above, by making several wounded people around where a jedi undercover was passing by. Since the jedi DID have the capacity to assist (accel others healing as well as many med packs), and could easily have done so, but chose not to so he maintained his cover, the GM awarded a DSP.
Anyway.. can we get back to damage and ways to inc it..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azai
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Azai wrote: | I think I am more in line with atgxtg on this one, for the most part.
I view everything in grey. Good and Evil, are cultural concepts that determined by the social and culture values we were raised with.
Which can be very different. There are many cultures that will determine common rights or wrongs, such as killing, forced labor, and theft. Though then at the same time while most cultures view these are bad they are not evil or "completely bad" in every single cast no matter what.
Killing; to defend oneself, a police officer firing against public threat, a soldier following orders, or a soldier protecting his comrades. What about killing an animal for food? Why as humans should we do this? To survive, is that justified enough? For me it is, for some no.
Thinking about theft in the society of the middle and dark ages where society was considered incredible unjust to a majority of the population through our "modern" eyes. You could have a very valid opinion for someone stealing a lords gold or food, when the lord took it from them in the first place. Think about the rebels, they stole almost everything.
And I think that is one thing we need to think about too, when determining what is right and wrong. Is that we see what we believe, what we think, and what our society holds as right and wrong. Whenever we judge. |
Homocide (i.e. the killing of one person by another) is defined by the means and circumstances surrounding the act. Murder is evil. Killing an enemy soldier in combat is NOT murder. Self defense is NOT murder. "Homicide" is, in fact, a "neutral" term. It's the INTENT behind the killing that makes it evil or justifiable (or, in some rare cases, even good). Killing of an animal is not murder either. Unless you want to say that a lion or tiger is murdering a caribou when it's having lunch. Killing for food is a natural part of the "circle of life" and the concept is really out of place in this discussion.
Theft is evil. If you're "stealing" something back that was stolen from you, it's not theft. You have the right to your own property and taking it from someone is perfectly okay. Revolting against oppression is not evil. Each person has a right to stand up for his rights. Using violence to defeat violence is a reasonable means to defend your right to safety, if other, more peaceful means have failed.
What you're talking about isn't really a question of right and wrong. You're just misunderstanding or misusing the terms that you selected. |
You very much proved my point here, in your response. Everything you applied from what I said came from a certain cultural set of values, and opinions. Remember I didn't inject the term murder into my post, I just spoke about the result of killing another life.
Killing an enemy soldier in war is not considered homicide, or murder because some people say so? Yet it is still killing, a life has still been lost, in a violent way. Take the American legal system of homicide and self defense. A child or wife that has been beaten or abused from a parent or spouse, and then at night kills them while sleeping can attempt to use a valid defense, of self-defense. Not everyone always wins, but it is still there in the thought process, despite them having a pre-planned attempt to murder someone who AT the time was harmless or not doing something to do them. Where in some cultures this would not be accepted as a valid defense or way to resolve an issue.
Then take raising up against oppression, what if as a result lots of people died because of your act. Things got out of hand, and a lot of children who had nothing to do with your revolution died? From certain cultural attitudes it would be justified for the greater good, or the cause, but form some not. Japan is a very good example where a culture looks at self-suffrage, as sometimes preferable then making wakes or society changes because it might harm a lot more people.
From a western, and American stand point I find that wrong, but just because in my culture I find that wrong doesn't make it evil, bad, or even sometimes wrong. It is just wrong for me.
My point in the end is we always apply our cultural standards to all situations, and it takes a long time to look at it truly from another point of view. Thus things, in my opinion, are never evil or good, they are just what we apply as our opinions as what evil and good are.
I will also state that I am trying to prove a point here, and the things I list aren't ideas I may or may not agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | Ah HA!! Here is why we think we are disagreeing. You seem to think that I'm saying that having wicked feelings warrants a darkside point. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that acting on
|
Yes, acting on.
[/quote]
or nurturing those wicked feelings warrants a darkside point.[/quote]
No you condradict youself. If nurturing isn't acting upon, then you ARE awardsing DSPs for wicked feelings.
| Quote: |
An evil person does evil. A good person does not. A good person may occasionally get a DSP for doing something evil. |
Complete contradiction. If a good person does not do eveil, then he can't get a DSP for doing something evil. Either a good person doesn't do evil, and doesn't get DSPs, or he does do evil, and thus can get DSPs. I doN7t see what you are trying to say here.
Now I'd say that anybody CAN do evil. An evil person is someewho who regualry chooses to do evil, or who does great evil.
| Quote: |
Whether he atones for it or not will reveal whether he is truly evil, or merely caved in to temptation that one time. |
Nope. Atonment does not mean that some isn't evil. By that logic you could "prove" that you weren't eveil by feeling bad about it afterwards. For instance, Darth Vader seemed to have atoned at the end of ROTJ, but that did not mean that he was any lesss evil during the time that he was doing evil. At best it just means that he was less evil at the end.
| Quote: |
If DSPs are awarded for intent, then being evil does in fact get you a DSP. Your logic here would actually suggest that you are the one who uses DSPs as a tool to punish a player, rather than to represent the deeper, underlying motives of the character. |
No. The player is playing the character, and thus any intentions and motives should be those of the character. That is, if the player is roleplaying.
| Quote: |
You also said that selfishness isn't evil. I agree. However, evil IS selfish (kinda like, not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles). A Jedi acting for selfish reasons in a context that brings potential harm to others is worthy of a DSP. |
No. Virtually any and all actions have the potential to bring harm to others. The key thing here is that the Jedi must actively be aware in and believe that he is putting others at risk without a valid reason. Like my argument with the posion and the Arcona, the important thing is that the Jedi must recogonize that he is putting others at risk.
The "Drunken Jedi" argument is moot anyway. The Jedi could probably detox. And even if he was drunk, he is most likley still a better pilot than all the other people on the road/sky/spacelane.
| Quote: |
Also note that I avoided the use of the word "failure" and chose the word "refusal." |
You didn't but Bren, did. He argued that Jedi should be held accountable for the RESULTS. I consider that inapproirate and unfair. A Jedi can only be held accountable for his own actions. The Jedi doesn't control the universe, or other people in it (and he shouldn't try to do so).
As far as refusal goes, maybe. Jedi have to see the "big picture", and sometimes have to allow some evil and suffering in order to do something more important. For instance, you can't go back th\o help Padme and let Count Dooku escape. Also, for similar reasons, a Jedi must be allowed to turn a blind eye to some evil ust so he can get anything done. If the Jedi is held accountable to help EVERYONE then he7d never be able to get from point a to point B. It just wound't be possible for the Jedi to function.
Also, the Jedi serve the Republic, not the other way around. The Jedi must let a lot of evil sip by in the name of freedom and democracy. Because if they start forcing others not to do evil, thety become disctators and, thus do evil. That7s one of Anakin's shortcommings. He wants people to do the right thing, and sees no problem in forcing them to do it.
| Quote: |
And note that no-one is forcing anyone to walk around near the edge of the platform in Cloud City. Choosing to play at the edge of a high rise is the choice of the "victim." Allowing a child to play around there is the negligence of the parent. There is a difference. |
Have you seen those platforms?
And yes, people are being forced to use them, since three really isn't an alternative. Those Ungaught slaves can't just complain to thier Union Rep. The whole SW galaxy is designed that way. In the real world, there are susally minimum safety standards for work environments and public access areas. Realsitically, the builders are negligent. Even the Empeor gets chucked down an open shaft that has no business being there. Now Lucasfilm put the shaft there for dramatic purposes, as with all those open catwalks. But if negligence is eveil, then all those builders are evil, as are the Jedi for being negligent in stopping it.
| Quote: |
A Jedi should only ignite his lightsaber when he is willing to kill and only then, in defense of life. Note that he may try to lop off an arm instead of kill, but he must be willing for the person he cut to die if he is going to cut at all. Any time the Jedi uses lethal force other than that MAY be worthy of a DSP. |
No. A Jedi does not have to be willing to kil EVERYTIME he draws his lightsaber. He is not a soldier on a battlefield. he is a peacekeeper. There may be times when he could and woud draw a lightsaber andnot be willing to kill. Considering the Jedi's skill, killing (and a willingness to kill) might be unecessary.
A jedi could alos use his lightsaber in a situation where deat is not necessary, or even inflciting injury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
I have heard of one gm who actually sprung something akin to the above, by making several wounded people around where a jedi undercover was passing by. Since the jedi DID have the capacity to assist (accel others healing as well as many med packs), and could easily have done so, but chose not to so he maintained his cover, the GM awarded a DSP. |
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.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. By that standard, does that mean, in ROTS when the Oddball's fighter squadron was getting hammered by Tri-fighters in the Battle of Coruscant, and Obi-wan stopped Anakin from going to help them (thereby resulting in several of their deaths), that Obi-wan received a DSP by not* abandoning the larger mission to save lives?
*EDIT: Added the word "not" so that my argument said what I meant it to.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Indeed. By that standard, does that mean, in ROTS when the Oddball's fighter squadron was getting hammered by Tri-fighters in the Battle of Coruscant, and Obi-wan stopped Anakin from going to help them (thereby resulting in several of their deaths), that Obi-wan received a DSP by abandoning the larger mission to save lives? |
Exactly. That's why I don't like the "Black & White" approach that some people seem to be taking. It sounds good to say that a Jedi must help people and that it is wrong if he doesn't, but things aren't always that clear cut. Sometimes stopping tohelp somebody can result in greater harm to others.
But that would be a "no-win" situation if the Jedi were tpget a DSP for not helping. He7d "turnhis back" on somebody no matter what he did. And pretty quickly all the Jedi would be railroaded to the Dark Side. The "Dark Side Spiral" would be practically unavoidable.
Clearly that doesn't happen, so the Jedi must be able select some priorities for what eviil to fight and what evil to let go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I have heard of one gm who actually sprung something akin to the above, by making several wounded people around where a jedi undercover was passing by. Since the jedi DID have the capacity to assist (accel others healing as well as many med packs), and could easily have done so, but chose not to so he maintained his cover, the GM awarded a DSP. |
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.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
