Dark Side Points and metagaming

[CRMcNeill]

[Fallon Kell]

[CRMcNeill]

[Fallon Kell]

[Zarm R'keeg]

Usually, I will warn them. However, there are certain cases of CLEARLY evil actions that I will only inform them after the fact. For instance, by PCs were playing an alternate-universe Bounty Hunting adventure, Seregar Turnabout. They were in the small town's weapons shop, interrogating the owner. Zol, the Shistavanen, was getting tired of having no leads and decided to take it out on the shop owner, and slugged him- intending on a rough-em-up style interrogation. His punch killed the gun shop owner- an old man who knew nothing- instantly. Now, the punch itself would've been borderline dark side, but as a shady merc., it wouldn't have necessarily earned a DSP, just a warning. However, as the result ended up being fatal, there was no chance to warn "If you roll a high damage, you'll get a Dark Side Point" or the like- and I didn't think to issue such a warning beforehand. However, neither I nor my players had a problem (well, okay, the Shistavanen complained A LITTLE about lack of lethal intent) issuing a DSP for killing the innocent civilian, because the character was clearly doing the wrong thing, and a not-entirely-unpredictable (and completely evil) result occurred. It's sort of a "If you're going to play with fire, then don't expect a warning before you get burnt" scenario.

However, in general, I will issue a warning when courses of action are being contemplated. (For instance, the group was being tracked by a squad of bounty hunters, and layed an ambush to try and capture one to find out who'd put a bounty out on them. They KO-ed three hunters, but due to extremely poor communication and panicked shouting as the police arrived to arrest both sides, only grabbed one of them as a prisoner. Poor deduction and observation resulted in one of my PCs deciding that Djas Puhr, the cold-blooded Sakiyan killer, was the most famous- thus he must also be the leader and the one who knew the most. They took him back to their ship, got a name... and then were debating what to do next, as Puhr made no secret of the fact that they had earned his undying emnity, and as a professional knife-killer, their imaginations filled in plenty of revenge quests that he would undertake if they let him go. However, as they debated, I felt duty bound to point out that, as he was just a bounty hunter doing his job non-lethaly, and they abducted HIM, and he was their helpless prisoner with an injured leg, every option they considered for killing him would result in a DSP. After several minutes, they got the hint. (With the Shistavanen petulantly interjecting every now and again "I suppose you';d give us a Dark Side Point if we just broke both his arms?" "I suppose we'd still get a Dark Side Point, even if we just broke all his fingers?") At present, Puhr is sedated in a locked room on their ship, and they haver no idea what they're gonna do with him- nor do I!) So, whenever I can forsee a scenario that could lead to a DSP or the player announces an action that will, I do try to warn them. But, if a player jumps right in on a borderline action that is clearly unethical, and something evil results, I don't have a problem with using an 'unwarned' DSP- in cases where, as Jatrell said on the first page, anyone should know better.

Now, for my newly force-sensitive PC, for whom acting with angry emotions, inaction, etc. can trigger a DSP, and is overall vulnerable to a much more sensitive, itchy-trigger-finger DSP threshold, we shall see- he will be well-educated on basic principles, and probably recieve copious warnings- but I am not sure if he will be handled the same way.

There are also grey areas- for instance, battlefeild executions of helpless but potentially dangerous prisoners (such as Pur, above). In that case, for questionable but defensible actions, I will usually consult with Fallon Kell, my morality and logic advisor- and thus far, it has come up three notable times:
-Jarus Kai, imperial spy in the Introductory Adventure Set- tied up, defenseless, and eventually executed by a PC. After a long discussion of the merits and reasons, the decision was made that the action was defensible based on what the PC believed and intended in the moment. While I would consider it dark, especially for a Force-sensitive character, it did not result in a DSP.

-A TIE fighter in the opening of Strikeforce: Shantipole- by chance, the craft's weapons and engines were both destroyed, the ship was drifting on the edge of an asteroid feild, his transmissions jammed, held on the end of a grappling line. The definition of helpless. I determined that his unecessary execution would result in a DSP, and warned the players. The Shistavanen decided the mission was too crucial, didn't want to deal with boarding, extracting, subding, and gaurding the pilot- so while the rest of the group debated, he walked over to the weapons console and blew the TIE fighter to kingdom come- fully aware of the consequences, but the player believed that was what their character would do. I respect those reasons and awarded points for good roleplaying- but also gave out a DSP.
-Thirdly, Djas Puhr above. DSP warning issued, which served as a deterent.

The long and short of which is this: in scenarios is which the action is not 'clearly,' by my judgement, an evil action- for which a case can be made that may be convincing that the act was not evil, then I will tend to err on the side of 'I didn't warn you and it wasn't CLEARLY evil' and let it slide (though, as with the battlefeild execution above, there can still be in-game consequences- such as Kai's Dark Jedi lover out for a bloodthristy revenge against the PC!) Unless, in discussion with others, I decide that the action was indeed clearly evil and the mounted defense did not hold water and was just an attempt to weasel out of the DSP wiothout sound reasoning behind it, I will err on the side of caution and give the PC the benefit of the doubt (and a warning that in future, the borderline behavior WILL result in a DSP). As the flip side, if I give out a DSP warning, even if the action (such as the other two 'execution' scenarios above) is simillar to the first case, because I have given a warning, if it is violated, it is an automatic DSP. Much like if you tell your child not to go over and pet the cat, and then they march right on over and pet it anyway- an objective panel of experts may indeed rule that petting the cat is not a morally wrong action (despite whatever reason you had for forbidding it in the first place)- but because the warning was given and then violated knowingly, punishment is still warranted. In otherwords, borderline actions are usually automatic if a warning is issued, and forgiven if a warning is not issued- unless you decide that the pro-action argument that MAKES it borderline is full of hot air- in which case it falls under the "clear actions without a warning" rule listed up top, like with the gun shop owner.

The last grey area that I have is intent. For the most part (such as the gunowner above), "I didn't mean for it to happen" isn't an excuse for the result of your choice- again, unintended consequences due not absolve individuals of responsibility for the actions. But... in the last game, I had a PC undergoing nonsense 'tests of enlightenment' at a monastery (in order to gain entrence to a hidden courtyard beyond where her quarry was waiting) who chose to essentially have a little old lady crushed to death with a rock rather than herself (fortunately, the test merely made you believe that was going to happen- it didn't actually); for her willingness to allow the little old lady to die to accomplish her objectives, I planned to award a DSP- however, the player managed to convince me that, because of the illusory and unreal nature of many preceeding tests, her character truly didn't believe that the little old lady was real. I relented (partly because I was trying to hurry along the evening so that we could get to a departing player's farewell scene while we still had time, as this would be his last session with us)- but that remains the one loophole or exception that I have not fully explored. If the character acts with good or non-malicious intent and does not believe that any harm will result from their actions, that may be a DSP point exception; the dark result is more like an accident than a malicious act. Now, the above example stretches that loophole to the limit, as it was clearly intentional, just based on an erroneous belief that the senses were being decieved and the evil act was not 'actually' being comitted, so I'm not sure- I still have yet to decide where exactly final rulings will fall in this category- and especially how that will affect the lower-threshold Force-sensitive. But, that's where I peg DSP issuings, myself.

Oh, and for the record- that bloodthirst Shistavanen is my wife.



Now, in terms of the more recent debate, I would say that- Fallon, we have to face the facts that Star Wars has always been (much more in the Prequels, but even in the OT) more pseudo-Eastern-philosophy influenced; as I read things, a Jedi acting in anger - even righteous anger- is open to a Dark Side Point. I don't think that's right in the real world, but I accept that this is the way it works in Star Wars- even if it doesn't make any sense. Now, my 'I'll accept the nonsense meter' boke with the prequels and nonattachment and other absurdities- but then, those were blind, arrogant Jedi in decline- which I think the storytelling is subtly meant to suggest- so I have no problem dismissing Jedi dogma as hardly being the last word or accurate about the Force. But basically, for Star Wars purposes, I've just come to accept that- disagree with it or not, what is portrayed in the OT is essnetially 'canon' about how the Force works, whether it jibes with real world morality or not. Not that anger or fear are always negative things, but that using the Force with them always opens up a gateway for the Dark Side to get a hook in you. Even if Anger or Fear can be turned into positive actions, using the Force while doing so still opens up a foothold within the individual. And we have seen people who have turned to the Dark Side through their possitive passions, not evil actions- but then become corrupted. Think of the Force/Dark Side like the One Ring... "Understand, Frodo, that I would use this out of a desire to do good..." but it can still corrupt if given a doorway in, and for the Force, acting in Anger, Fear, or Hate is what opens that doorway. May not be a universally applicable rule in real life, or factor in righteous anger or the like- but for Star Wars, that's the way it is. (At least, that's how I'm come to live with the dichotomy.)
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!

[garhkal]