Concepts of the Force

[Dromdarr_Alark]

[shootingwomprats]

I have been watching the conversation and feel the need to jump in there. Everyone realizes that DSP are nothing more than a mechanic for keeping track of characters misdeeds? DSP do not confer DS Force points. I am just saying because it confused me too at one time.

The only time DSP affects a character is if they gain 2. The RAW state when a characters receives a DSP roll 1D6, if the roll is LESS than the total the character falls to the dark side.

I have never liked this rule. Check out the "Corruption Rules" I posted a while back.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter

[garhkal]

[crazydanny1]

Holy smokes… I didn’t intend on sparking a hot debate. LOL.

For game mechanics, I understand that Force Points and Dark Side Points are a necessary evil. They are part of the game and are needed to keep to what I like to call “heroic storytelling.” It boils down to the player characters are supposed to be the heroes of the story, not the bad guys. To keep players in line, Dark Side Points are there to make them tow a line. “You get five chances to goof up and be evil. After five, guess what, your character becomes mine!” – random Game Master.

I’m firmly entrenched in the idea of “if you’re going to play a Force-user, you have to play a good one.” The Jedi, or another faction of Lightsiders, should be dedicated to the principles of preserving life and upholding the nature of being good. You play to be the hero and to be the hero, you have to be good. Plain and simple.

Perhaps the vision that Mr. Lucas set out has been strayed from. Perhaps George wanted it to be black and white. The EU certainly has strayed away from that if that’s the case. The Unifying Force novel shows Jacen Solo, a relatively good guy at that point, seeing the Force as being without Light or Dark sides. Now he would later go on to be a Sith… A true bad guy. Are there Sith out there, in canon, that have good intentions? Sure, but the overall philosophy of the Sith has always been one of domination and manipulation. They want to control the Force, not exist in it. The Jedi, on the other hand, want to be the servants of the Force, existing in it and maintaining life… perhaps more so than the balance of the natural Force requires.

So, I guess it all boils down to this: Are you a stickler and say that just because the rule says you’ll get a DSP, you’ll get one? Or are you one that says “You used the Force to save the whole population of a world, but you used a power that was evil. You get a DSP, but I’m taking away.”? Or… Are you a GM that says “You believe in a concept of the Force that differs from others. You used a power that could be construed as evil, but you used it for the right reasons. You showed good moral judgement and maintained your standing within the Light side of the Force. No DSP for you.”?

This kind of strayed away from what I was initially after. Maybe I worded it wrong. The Living Force is concerned with being focused on the present and surroundings, being aware of your impact through the Force on things. Qui-Gon put it best saying that one had to be mindful of his actions and how they would affect the future. The Unifying Force, on the other hand, focused on believers always keeping their eyes open to possibilities, constantly keeping in mind that there was a destiny to fulfill. Now with that said, do you use these elements to drive a story or a character plot?

Perhaps my friend and I are too deep into meshing the story-telling with the RPG part. I’m not sure. I know I do a lot of writing for our current game, in which I delve into a lot of the Force philosophy. It’s kind of the driving point for our whole campaign, which has turned into a Co-GM game. Anyway… that’s my two cents.
_________________
"Sarcasm is just one of the many services I provide."

http://swbloodlines.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Bloodlines_Wiki

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[DougRed4]

Lots of great discussion here, and I find myself nodding in agreement for the most part with much of what lurker and Dromdarr wrote/said.

crazydanny, I like how your group is really focusing on some of these interesting dilemmas and exploring these issues and questions. Both in my game (and my personal beliefs), I don't tend to only evaluate someone's motives. You know the old saying "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions!". It really comes down to whether you subscribe to an "the ends justify the means" philosophy. It's not always easy to decide, though. From lurker's example, I don't think I'd give a DS point to someone who blew up a compound (or a Death Star), possibly killing some innocents, because the overall act was saving millions of others and eradicating massive evil. On the other hand, a Jedi who used his telekinesis to Force choke an innocent, even if that (somehow) prevented somebody else from dying (say, the Jedi had a precognitive dream and knew that a young child would eventually become evil and kill somebody) is a case where I'd likely award a DS point.

I've been pretty fortunate in my game. My Jedi Knight has felt really bad when he's used his powers to strike down others, even when they're evil foes he's vanquishing. He has been very careful to not get "drunk with power", and so I'm hesitant to drop DS points on him, because of his efforts to be peaceful and try not to harm others. Another player (of a more Han Solo-esque scoundrel) totally agreed that he deserved a DS point, after he tricked his way into kidnapping an Imperial captive and dropping him into a nearby sun.

Our PCs had an interesting moral dilemma when they suddenly found themselves with Imperial captives on a primitive world. They couldn't just let them free, but also didn't feel comfortable simply executing them. They ended up turning them over to the natives (who were oppressed by the Empire) - which was effectively a death sentence. But I didn't penalize them for it, being as they didn't do the deed themselves, nor did they really have any way out of a bad situation.

Interesting discussion, and I agree with those that have said it's really up to each individual GM to decide what's going to be the way it's done at their table (or in their game). Hopefully the players are on (roughly) the same page, and can understand how that GM is running things, since this is an issue that it's fairly important for others to understand. As long as the GM is consistent and just, the players will likely understand. And for some it's probably important to do what the RAW recommends: warning players as they start to go down that dark path. "You know, if you do choose to do that you might end up with a Dark side point!..."
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

[Leon The Lion]

To be completely clear, I was joking - perhaps unfairly, and I apologise if I've given offence - by referencing Obi-Wan's line from RotS, that "only a Sith deals in absolutes".

Truth is, I dislike and disagre with that line myself, especially as it is simply not true - the Jedi, especially as shown in the prequels, deal in as much absolutes as the Sith.

I strongly dislike the Jedi as shown in the prequels. People say "they must be doing something right". But I find (some of) the ways they are doing it abhorrent. The Jedi ensure the stability of their members by, basically, abducting babies from the crib and rasing them as heavily indoctrinated orphans. Saying "well, it works" smacks of "the needs justify the means". I just can't get behind that. Not as amoral stance for a character I'm supposed to perceive as an unquestioned "good guy".

I have no training in philosophy, but painting the world in black and white only, with no grey in between - or even allowing grey, but claiming all grey ultimately leads only in the direction of black, as canon SW Force seems to do - makes ME cringe. Claiming justifiable, natural human emotions can lead only to evil if allowed to be felt, let alone acted upon - I just have no words for that one.

This is how I feel.

When it comes to portraying the Force, I'm as of yet actually undecided on a detailed, unified approach. Luckily it hasn't been really important in my game - yet.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

[garhkal]

[Dromdarr_Alark]

[Mikael Hasselstein]

No worries, I'm up to speed, even if it's been a long while since my one undergrad course in ethics. I think you're right that the Force as portrayed is Kantian. However, this is the House Rules section.

Do you think that the rule about the killing of innocents (implying that it's okay to kill non-innocents) doesn't actually transgress the Kantian approach, however? Is the judgement of the action really so conditional upon the subjective belief of who is or is not innocent? Shouldn't the judgement be on 'killing' in general and the person doing the killing?

As more of an empiricist, I enjoy working out scenarios where belief systems conflict. Also, I like the notion of a belief system not being so much right/true as upright.

So, I would entertain a tradition in the Force (a minority) where the practitioner has to work out the hedonistic calculus in order to determine what is right. The criticism of utilitarianism that I hear (again, not being someone who dapples in normative theory all that often), is that utilitarianism frequently presents an argument that rhetorically justifies something awful, without that justification being authentic. But an upright utilitarian would have a great deal to consider.

But to your Aristotelian approach, I think you're on to something. I tend to view an important part of the Force to be calm rationality rather than being a slave to one's passions. You are in tune with the Force when you in disciplined control of yourself. Also, that you are able to stop the lies in your head that rationalize what you want to do for other reasons.

[lurker]

Wow, this discussion has taken a great turn and we've ended up chasing some cool rabbits ...

I think I've spent enough time on the ole soap box so I don't have too much to say this time

One thing, to chase another rabbit, I agree with :

[Jedi Skyler]

It was mentioned earlier about possibly being able to use the Force in different ways to achieve the same result. This is most definitely possible. Here are two examples:

Instinctive Astrogation: The normal, original version of this power is a Sense power; the Jedi uses his Sense ability to seek out the proper path through space. However, a newer, different version of this power was also put out: Instinctive Astrogation (Control). This version of the power has the Jedi using his Control ability, basically allowing himself to make the myriad of calculations required to do a hyperspace jump in his head, rather than using a navicomp.This version IS harder to do, but is possible.

The other example is, of course, Force Lightning. The original, normal version of this power is, of course, a Dark Side power. The user gets a DSP for using it, case closed. However, there is a different version of this power, one that Luke uses in the EU. The bolts of electricity are green, rather than black, and they only deal stun damage; they won't electrocute the target. The user of THIS power does NOT get a DSP.

And although I'm trying to mostly stay out of the philosophical part of the discussion, the latter example is a prime case of how intent determines DSPs. Using the non-lethal version means you aren't trying to use the Force to kill someone, and so it's a far better thing than using the darker version of the power.

[Tinman]

The Dark Empire sourcebook has a small section which goes into some very basic stuff concerning the nature of the Force, which is very interesting reading. One of the more eye opening points that's made there (though it's also been pointed out elsewhere) is that the Dark Side is not, in its basic form as a natural aspect of the universe, inherently evil. The effect it invariably has on intelligent beings (especially Force Sensitive ones) who attempt to wield it does inevitably bring about evil consequences, but this has more to do with the personality aspects one must foster in order to channel that aspect of the Force. This has some very interesting implications when considering what goes on in the minds of those who claim to "commune" with the Dark Side. Does the Dark Side actually have a "will" one can connect with, or are these individuals just "talking to themselves?" (This would go some distance toward explaining why those who deal in it have a tendency to eventually go insane.) Communing with the Light Side aspect, by comparison, is exploring the communal and connective aspects of the living universe, though it certainly is possible to lose oneself by delving too deeply into that as well. (One can become so immersed in it that they can't disengage themselves from it.. consider what happens when a person enters into a state of Emptiness but doesn't have sufficient Control to extricate themselves from it.)

Though it is a HIGHLY perilous endeavor, a person seeking to understand the Dark Side could do so in a purely logical and scientific manner without being drawn into it, so long as they were VERY disciplined about remaining personally detached from the subject matter and SOLIDLY determined never to actually make use of it. Probably the safest means of doing so would be to have a very thorough understanding of the Light Side, and gain most of their knowledge of the Dark Side by way of eliminative deduction (understanding what the Dark Side IS by way of examining what the Light Side is NOT.) Dark Side adepts would have a much more difficult time attempting to do the same thing, as that philosophy generally does not encourage contemplation of the connectedness of the universe, but how the universe relates to the self. (It is much easier for a civilized man to comprehend the motives of a barbarian than it is for a barbarian to understand a civilized man.)

Now, this doesn't imply that every Force Sensitive is either a hero or a villain. There are almost certainly individuals here and there who've found that they have some ability with the Force and only make very limited use of it (possibly without understanding exactly what they're doing.) There are probably farmers who've figured out that they can make their crops grow better if they concentrate really hard on it, hyperspace route explorers who've found they have an inexplicable knack for "feeling" safe paths between astrogation points, gamblers who've discovered they're reliably "psychic" and parents who have a strange talent for just making their sick or injured children well by willing it so. The reason why these sorts of folks are unlikely to become either Jedi Knights or Sith Lords is because they're likely to have no serious ambitions about gaining more power than they've already discovered by accident, and they're using what they have discovered in relatively harmless or mildly benign ways. If they have no need or desire to gain a greater connection with either aspect of the Force, they have no real motive toward fostering the personality aspects which would give them that sort of connection. Most Sith (and some Jedi) might consider these people to be wasting their potential, while other (more reflective) Jedi might just shrug and say they're either serving the will of the Force in their own small but important ways if they're using it in a benevolent manner, or regard them as harmless if they're at least doing nothing really harmful with it. (Both, however, would be likely to keep these people in mind in case they ever hear of anything unusual in their vicinities later on..)

When considering those who've chosen to serve the Dark Side, some are probably also going to be more actively evil than others. Being evil doesn't necessarily make one stupid, and a fair number of these may have learned to temper their ambition and actions for good reason. More likely from observation of the mistakes of others than by trial and error, they've figured out that a. making your power highly visible will attract the attention of other people who covet that power, see you as a threat or are simply jealous, b. people who are opposed to the way in which you're wielding your power will eventually show up if they get wind of it, and that "good" does not mean "weak" (and you're mature and/or experienced enough to grasp that fact even though it might make you feel better to believe otherwise,) c. repeatedly calling upon the raw power of the Dark Side in a dramatic fashion (i.e. asking it for Force Points) causes one to grow personally weak or physically waste away sooner or later.. and either a. or b. will often lead to having to resort to c. Those Dark Siders whose desire for self preservation is stronger than their desire for more power are likely to account for both the subtle ones who call upon the Force only rarely and in secret, and the weird ones who sit cross legged in isolated caves having visions, inhaling strange mists and mumbling to themselves. It could also account for creepy old alien witches who live in huts out in the woods who people avoid unless they're bringing them gifts in exchange for strange curative concoctions or to find out who their wife has been cheating on them with. The above are probably never going to blow up planets or try to create galactic empires, even though they might like to daydream about such things occasionally, but that doesn't mean they're good elements within their own spheres of influence.

Now, for my own personal opinion on whether the Force (in any form or tradition in which it's used) should have more "wiggle room" for how it affects those who wield it toward different ends.. I'll admit a certain amount of bias when it comes to dealing with that idea. I've never been very fond of the whole "amorality is fun" meme that's become a sort of fad in various sorts of gaming during the last few years, so I've been very happy to fall back on the idea that "if the players have to spend a lot of time justifying why their actions aren't evil, chances are the action is indeed evil and they simply don't want to admit to it." I've found it to be marvelous advice, straight out of the core rulebook.. especially if, like myself, one has limited patience for sophists. That isn't to say I haven't changed my mind on occasion based on having something (briefly!) pointed out to me, but it's very uncommon.

[Leon The Lion]

[Tinman]