| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think I get what your saying: you want to allow that gray area for the sake of developing drama/conflict/struggle... make the story interesting.
I'm the same; although, if a player were to constantly be hanging around in the gray area, I would probably award DSPs, as some players like to do things just to see if they can get away with it (basically, flirting with the darkside... if you try to walk on a razor, you'll eventually cut your foot and lose your balance). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | ... if you try to walk on a razor, you'll eventually cut your foot and lose your balance). |
Beware of this:
Although maybe it's easier if you have special shoes, like this one:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beware of the....Green Side?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4853
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There were aspects of the article I liked, and others that pretended to be more insightful than they actually were. Though, coming from someone who teaches college ethics courses, that's probably not a surprising reaction. Though I've often likened the morality of the Jedi to a duty-bound class of ethics (as opposed to the more consequence-based ethic of the general American public), I think that he raises some areas where virtue-based ethics can come into play.
In general, virtue ethics mean living in accordance or harmony with the proper function of the human being. A well-functioning human being avoids certain actions and attitudes in lieu of ones that promote a wholeness of the human being. It is not too far outside of the Aristotelian ethic to suggest that the Dark Side is a corrupting force of the human being, not because they merely act selfishly, but because they act outside of the function of the human being. He does correctly identify selfishness, but I think this would not be the sole contributing factor.
The idea of avoiding the "naughty emotions" is not so silly as he makes it seem. Yes, the human being feels certain feelings, though it is not the feeling itself that determines whether your action is moral or immoral. Human beings (or sentient beings for the sake of this discussion) filter those feelings, and act in accordance with their moral states. For example, you may affront me by deliberately damaging my property. Now my feelings might prompt me to lash out at you and throw a brick, but a well-functioning rational mind channels that to an appropriate action of righteous indignation, such as by filing a grievance or seeking remuneration for the damaged property.
As such, acting in accordance with the vices might lead you to some actions that may not be selfish. We had one of our uses bring up the following example:
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Whill wrote: |
It is the actions that they lead to and the path they can lead you down. |
I agree, but wouldn't that call into question the entire idea of DSPs being linked to anger/motives? As a hypothetical, wouldn't a Jedi who killed Palpatine in anger over the great purge be in equal standing with one who killed him because of the further harm he was liable to do to the galaxy? |
Certainly this poses problems for the consequence-based ethicist. Certainly killing Palpatine would be a good thing. Thus, how can we decry a Jedi who does it. However, the qualifier in anger makes all the difference in the world. One of my favorite quotes from Aristotle is "...a just and temperate person is not merely one who does these deeds but one who does them in the spirit of the just and the temperate." If one kills Palpatine for justice he is different than the one who kills Palpatine in anger. The consequence is the same, but the internal factors are very different. One will be a corrupting act, the other will not. (I expect that idea to not set well with consequentialists in the forum.) In essence you must do a deed for the right reason as well as do the deed. Some may perform some actions that may appear moral, but do them on whim, fancy, or improper motive. Such actions have no moral worth.
Some may mistake my previous ideas to say that any action may be done, so long as it is done in the right spirit. This is not so. The ever-present example is that of Force Lightning. Such an action is necessarily rooted in a vice, and can never be moderated or tempered.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Last edited by cheshire on Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | I tend to think that the newer movies were tainted by political propaganda disguised as "drama." |
That's interesting. What do you think the political message of the prequels is?
| Naaman wrote: | | The idea of a "darkside" is just fine with me, so long as all players agree that the darkside is not effectively half of the Force (which even some "canonical" sources seem to portray), rather, it is just the corruption that lives in the heart of a person (usually a Force user). |
I like this interpretation. The "Dark Side" is not an evil type of Force or a Force that consciously attempt to lure Force Sensitives into evil actions in order for them to embrace it.
The phrase "Dark Side", I imagine (as in, I'm making it up), is a holdover from an earlier era when people thought in such Manichean terms. (I haven't read any of the novels set in the earlier era's so please correct me if I am totally off the reservation.) However, it is more about Force Sensitives who are willing to use the power of the Force in destructive ways, because they have abandoned the discipline of using the Force properly.
Going to the Dark Side is "easier, quicker" because discipline is hard. Discipline is about imposing your calm and thoughtful will onto your actions and actions through the Force, rather than your immediate desire. The Dark Side tempts you to throw that discipline to the wind and act upon your gut reactions. ("Search your feelings" is not about feelings vs. rationale, but about contemplation).
Anyway, those are my thoughts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4853
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | The phrase "Dark Side", I imagine (as in, I'm making it up), is a holdover from an earlier era when people thought in such Manichean terms. (I haven't read any of the novels set in the earlier era's so please correct me if I am totally off the reservation.) However, it is more about Force Sensitives who are willing to use the power of the Force in destructive ways, because they have abandoned the discipline of using the Force properly.
Going to the Dark Side is "easier, quicker" because discipline is hard. Discipline is about imposing your calm and thoughtful will onto your actions and actions through the Force, rather than your immediate desire. The Dark Side tempts you to throw that discipline to the wind and act upon your gut reactions. ("Search your feelings" is not about feelings vs. rationale, but about contemplation). |
Interesting notion. That certainly seems plausible.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice post Cheshire. 
| cheshire wrote: | One of my favorite quotes from Aristotle is "...a just and temperate person is not merely one who does these deeds but one who does them in the spirit of the just and the temperate." If one kills Palpatine for justice he is different than the one who kills Palpatine in anger. The consequence is the same, but the internal factors are very different. One will be a corrupting act, the other will not. (I expect that idea to not set well with consequentialists in the forum.) In essence you must do a deed for the right reason as well as do the deed. Some may perform some actions that may appear moral, but do them on whim, fancy, or improper motive. Such actions have no moral worth.
Some may mistake my previous ideas to say that any action may be done, so long as it is done in the right spirit. This is not so. The ever-present example is that of Force Lightning. Such an action is necessarily rooted in a vice, and can never be moderated or tempered. |
The problem I see with an Aristotelian or virtue-based ethics in the real world is that you can't know the current or past state of mind or motive of another actor - I will leave aside the question of whether or not we actually fully know our own past states of mind or motives.
Similarly, it can be difficult to truly determine the state of mind or motive of all PCs in a Star Wars game. Some players are not that aware of their characters internal states, some players find it difficult to articulate those states, and some players are less than fully honest in relaying their character's states. That is one reason I have previously argued for looking at not just what a player says their character's motive is/was but also looking at both the circumstances surrounding the action and the consequences of the action.
But I think that a virtue-based ethic is consistent with the Jedi teachings that we hear on screen. In fact, it better fits those teachings than a deontological or duty based approach. And either a virtue-based or a duty-based approach is more suitable than a consequential or utilitarian approach. In fact, one of the conflicts we see between Anakin and Obi-wan is the conflict between Anakin's utilitarian approach and the other two approachs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheshire managed to say what I would have wanted to say in a much more generic and Star Wars-friendly way than I would have been able to say it.
Bren--I think that if we can allow a player to dictate exactly who his character is, then we can allow him to decide what his character is feeling/learning/experiencing. As a GM, you'd have to look for consistency on the part of the player when explaining his rationale, or else begin to award DSPs for whimsical misuse of power. This may actually better represent some of the more subtle instances where Force users have fallen to the dark side: the character convinces himself that he's doing good in order not to confront the reality that he's creeping closer to the fall.
In a case like this, you might even calculate the DSPs secretly, and offer mysterious bonuses in questionable circumstances... when the character falls to the dark side, the dark side makes it's claim (in such a case, I would not as a GM take over the character. Rather, I'd use the fall as a plot device to try and convince the character to change his ways and seek redemption). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Bren--I think that if we can allow a player to dictate exactly who his character is, then we can allow him to decide what his character is feeling/learning/experiencing. |
Ahh...but as a GM I don't always and in every circumstance "allow a player to dictate exactly who his character is." That is a subject for discussion between, at a minimum, the GM and the player. Depending on the desired tone and style of play, we have also included other players in such discussions during character creation. I find the spending a lot of effort up front on character creation and integration eliminates a lot of in play problems.
Character consistency and tone are very important to me, both as a player and as a GM. So characters who behave in a manner that is in stark conflict with the known character background and in-game behavior often break my suspension of disbelief and, taken to an extreme, can ruin the tone of a game.
Let's take an example of a character (call him Gaandee Sunwalker) who, by character creation and in-game action is known be extremely peaceful, always advises or advocates caution and attempting a peaceful resolution to situations to the point of practically abhorring violence and the Gaandee has been played that way for multiple game sessions. Suddenly, one Friday night, Gaandee suddenly is suggesting an immediate attack and acting violent and hostile. Now if this is because there is some in-game explanation - that is interesting and could lead to some very dramatic roleplaying among the group. If I were the GM and I didn't know what that reason was, I would certainly take Gaandee's player aside to ask "hey what's up with the new personality for Gaandee."
On the other hand, if the reason has nothing to do with the in-game universe, but just that Gaandee's player had a really bad week. Then either as player or GM I would have a problem with the uncaused - from an in universe perspective - radical personality change and I'd hope some side discussion might get Gaandees player to either get back on track or postpone playing until a better time.
Another example, would be the classic munchkin player who's character does things - often quite disruptive or damaging to other PCs - for no in game reason, but just because the player (as opposed to the character) is bored.
This is not to say that players shouldn't decide what their characters do in game in the vast majority of cases. In general, I believe that an average or better player with a reasonably consistent character personality and background is the best person to decide what his or her character thinks and feels about things in game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given the relatively small group of posters on this forum, and the level of commitment exhibited to a long lost version of the SWRPG, it would seem that none of THESE people would fall into either of your two examples.
Now, as a gamer, I tend to be a "min-maxer" when it comes to making player choices about the mechanics of my character, but my min-maxing is tempered by a desire to conform to the theme of the character. Therefore, all decisions made by me as the player are subordinate to the theme of the character, not to the min-maxing/munchkin/power gaming/etc aspect of play.
All that being said, I think that the player, (not the GM or other players) should have veto rights to anything that the group may have previously agreed upon or is pushing for about that character. Unless it's something that comes from within the rules, of course (falling to the darkside for using injure/kill all the time, for example). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
