| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darth_Kjeran
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 60
Location: Overton, TX USA
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"Welcome, Padawan. . . .Master Orgus told me you battled flesh raiders and a force user armed with a lightsaber. That must have been a disturbing confrontation. . . .Taking a life affects the Living Force and the one who does the killing. This is why Jedi enter battles calmly with reason. Emotions like fear and anger lead to the Dark Side. . . .As the Jedi Code teaches us, 'There is no emotion, there is peace.' Remember those words when times are darkest. . . ."
--Master Satele Shan, SWTOR MMO, Jedi Knight story Prolouge, Tython
Just saying. 
_________________
“A Royal Guardsman never seeks special privileges. Ever. His entire goal in life is to serve the Emperor, and the New Order he created. His goal in life, and his desire in death.”
Major Tierce, Star Wars: Specter of the Past |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Volar the Healer wrote: | I state it as self evident, because it is. You make a common mistake; you mistake perception or reality for reality. It doesn't matter what "ethical system" or "worldview" you have. It only matters if your system or worldview correctly matches reality...just as in real life.
In Star Wars RPG, I refer to the Force as I saw it in the movies. I care nothing for "ethical systems", nor "worldview". There is only the Force. Even if a character's culture teaches him murder is acceptable, the Jedi will still get a darkside point for it. The fact that his entire society has accepted a lie means nothing, thus "ethical systems" and "worldview" are meaningless...just as in real life. |
See, what this forum needs is a Facebook-style 'Like' button.
| Darth_Kjeran wrote: | "Welcome, Padawan. . . .Master Orgus told me you battled flesh raiders and a force user armed with a lightsaber. That must have been a disturbing confrontation. . . .Taking a life affects the Living Force and the one who does the killing. This is why Jedi enter battles calmly with reason. Emotions like fear and anger lead to the Dark Side. . . .As the Jedi Code teaches us, 'There is no emotion, there is peace.' Remember those words when times are darkest. . . ."
--Master Satele Shan, SWTOR MMO, Jedi Knight story Prolouge, Tython
Just saying. |
This rather does seem to support the viewpoint of
| Volar the Healer wrote: | | The Force recognizes the need to defend oneself. It is not evil to defend oneself or others. This is why the Jedi can use their powers to defend others violently. Violence is not evil; initiating violence unjustly is. Life creates the Force. To kill a mass murderer weakens the force. To not kill a mass murderer weakens it more when he continues murdering again and again. The Jedi understand this. |
the Jedi enter battle calmly and with reason, dispassionately- recognizing that every taking of life does have an effect, but often it is necessary to prevent greater taking of life- and does what must be done, aside from an emotional revulsion from killing or passionate investment in it. So these two views seem fairly consistent to me.
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | See, what this forum needs is a Facebook-style 'Like' button. |
I wonder if a "thumbs up" emoticon would be viable...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is not evil to defend oneself or others. |
This is an absolutism, where the term defending one's self is subjective, circumstantial, perceptual and up for debate and conjecture for motivation and detail, as to how and when it can be applied. It is a moral assertion.
It is no different to saying it is not criminal to defend one's self or others, which depends where you stand. On US soil it usually is not criminal. On Commonwealth soil it usually is. That's because moral assertion within government and legislation differ between the two.
The word evil is old english (yfel), meaning literally "unlife" and comes mostly from a construct of old teutonics and latin, started off meaning things like defective or crime but in the 18th century took its darker tones of wickedness.
Essentially it is not really the act of pouring acid onto a plant instead of water that is evil, it is the acid itself to the plant. As a moral assertion one might say that a person which routinely pours acid on plants is defective to the creation of a productive society which would like plants to live, so is unlife and evil in their actions and by routines.
See how the true context is a very mechanical system. It's not about justification, which is a conscious argumentation. As Volar the Healer described it doesn't really matter if a local ethic says it is good or bad, or what opinions people have, the accumulation of a DSP is a mechanical effect due to the nature of the Force itself.
Yet the statement that it is not evil to defend oneself or others is one such subjection. If you can't describe exactly why and how this works in a mechanical system it becomes an argument of what does/doesn't describe benevolent defence.
Do you fear for the life of one you are forced to defend? Is this not then fear, a path to the dark side? Do you not sincerely dislike the injustice of having to defend yourself or others due to some criminal's whim, is that not a path to the dark side?
What if you feel completely neutral about pre-emptively killing a mass murderer? What if you are at peace to murder a dangerous individual or alien? What if then later someone with a more enlightened point of view convinced you that you should not be so at peace for this act, and so you are not. At which point did you get the DSP, when you did it, or when you thought it was wrong?
I agree with a lot of what Volar said, but would add that I'd try to avoid moral debate regarding DSP awards and try to form an impassive mechanical system using simple fundamentals for the actual ruling. Debate among players/characters is fine (try to encourage it to be contained within the gaming environment and speaking through their characters, rather than between players-GM and becoming an argument that stalls gameplay).
My own system is very simple. Aside from powers specified to get you DSP in the manner specified, use the Force as a direct attack gets DSP. It's mechanical. You're okay if you use the Force indirectly, but then whether you gain a DSP is nothing to do with use of the Force but regular character actions warranting DSP.
ie. you get a DSP in my game the same way with a lightsabre that you do with a blaster as a non-jedi. No different, Force is not being used directly but indirectly here.
But use the Force directly, such as telekinesis, for stun damage (force push) you're okay even if arguably emotional; for lethal damage (telekinetic kill), you get auto DSP no matter how the player says his character feels about it.
I keep it mechanical, as simple as possible, and out of debate unless in character. I try to avoid our game becoming a religious instruction by the GM to players, it's personal and like shoving bibles down peoples throats who just came to play a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | Quote: | | It is not evil to defend oneself or others. |
It is no different to saying it is not criminal to defend one's self or others, which depends where you stand. On US soil it usually is not criminal. On Commonwealth soil it usually is. That's because moral assertion within government and legislation differ between the two. |
This relativism is based on differing governments and opinions of man. There is an absolutism that lies beyond such petty clashes of opinion which they may or may not coincide with. In this case, even if you reject the idea of absolute morality (in which case, I'll haul out my old standby and say you're wrong and challenge you to disprove me without absolutes...  ), just as each nation has their own position on whether it is right or wrong- so would the Force. To the Force it is either right or wrong, regardless of the opinions of men. Absolutism would still apply (even if only on a specific case-by-case basis). The only debate let would be... well, whether it was right or wrong. But it can hardly be neither, nor can the notion that defending one's self isn't evil be called an unjustified statement in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that this is the Force's position... and numerous citeable examples in the films that it certainly seems to be, as self-defense is never treated as a darkside action.
| vanir wrote: | | Essentially it is not really the act of pouring acid onto a plant instead of water that is evil, it is the acid itself to the plant. As a moral assertion one might say that a person which routinely pours acid on plants is defective to the creation of a productive society which would like plants to live, so is unlife and evil in their actions and by routines. |
Interesting. This reminds me of CS Lewis' Space Trilogy, where one species term for evil is "bent." An evil person is bent- or even broken- defective to the way that life is meant to function. I don't see where the word started, and where it ended up, as actually being anything but different ways of saying the same thing. (And it seems to fit well with Lucas' concept of Balance of the Force meaning a restoration to its natural balance of goodness, too. Evil is the dysfunction of what should be.)
| vanir wrote: | | Do you fear for the life of one you are forced to defend? Is this not then fear, a path to the dark side? Do you not sincerely dislike the injustice of having to defend yourself or others due to some criminal's whim, is that not a path to the dark side? |
This is precisely why I think categorizing all fear as the same, and leading to the Dark Side, is stupid- as is the idea that the Jedi then reject fear's antithesis, love, as well- they reject every good tool to help them avoid the bad they're also supposed to reject. Which is part of why the Prequel Jedi were idiots and Order 66 is the best thing that could've ever happened to the galaxy to sweep those losers away... but this is getting off-topic...
| vanir wrote: | | What if you feel completely neutral about pre-emptively killing a mass murderer? What if you are at peace to murder a dangerous individual or alien? What if then later someone with a more enlightened point of view convinced you that you should not be so at peace for this act, and so you are not. At which point did you get the DSP, when you did it, or when you thought it was wrong? |
When you did it- when the Force judges you, not when you judge yourself (after all, would Anakin Skywalker have ever awarded himself DSPs? No, he'd've thought he was justified...). But this does not mean that the Force doesn't judge, that things are not clearly Light or Dark- just that whether they are light or dark depends on the Force's objective standards, not the individual's subjective beliefs. However, there is still an objective lightness and darkness unbeholden to whim or reinterpretation by which things are light or dark- and it is to this absolute standard that one must compare when judging something right or wrong, good or evil in terms of the light and dark sides... and, in the inability to query the Force about its motives or viewpoints, I think we just have to look for examples in the canon... I have hardly performed a comprehensive search, but it seems to me that lethal self-defense or defense of others is not considered or ever spoken of as dark. Which, admittedly, could just be all of the subjective people wrongly approving of it- but we don't get any repercussions or indications form the Force that it was dark, either- again, that I can recall.
I think it's important to recognize that the emotional aspect and morality of Force usage are a key part of the Star Wars universe, and even incorporated into the RAW; I don't think a mechanical-only system is very accurate for a decline to the Dark Side because it leaves far too many loopholes for evil and amoral actions without consequence- of course, this is a debate that's been had on many, many threads, and I'm not looking to reopen it... just to say that I don't think making the morality and emotions of a Force Sensitive a part of Dark Side mechanics is shoving any kind of religion down your players throats- it is just incorporating a key, inseparable aspect of the Galaxy Far Far Away that your characters came to play in- just as much as they'd have to expect a requirement to behave honorably in a Medieval RPG, or a liklihood to die for wearing a red shirt in a Star Trek RPG.
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | Darth_Kjeran wrote: | "Welcome, Padawan. . . .Master Orgus told me you battled flesh raiders and a force user armed with a lightsaber. That must have been a disturbing confrontation. . . .Taking a life affects the Living Force and the one who does the killing. This is why Jedi enter battles calmly with reason. Emotions like fear and anger lead to the Dark Side. . . .As the Jedi Code teaches us, 'There is no emotion, there is peace.' Remember those words when times are darkest. . . ."
--Master Satele Shan, SWTOR MMO, Jedi Knight story Prolouge, Tython |
This rather does seem to support the viewpoint of
| Volar the Healer wrote: | | The Force recognizes the need to defend oneself. It is not evil to defend oneself or others. This is why the Jedi can use their powers to defend others violently. Violence is not evil; initiating violence unjustly is. Life creates the Force. To kill a mass murderer weakens the force. To not kill a mass murderer weakens it more when he continues murdering again and again. The Jedi understand this. |
|
I think it supports parts of it and refutes part of it. Volar seems to be saying there is no problem with killing as long as you kill in defense. I think a better synopsis of the Jedi POV is that killing is always regrettable, always a wrong. Sometimes killing may be necessary, but it is always a bad thing. But sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. But if the Jedi can defend without killing that is always better than defending by killing. That does not seem to be what Volar is claiming, but I think that idea is much closer to what Master Satele Shan is saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree an attitude of acceptance to varying play styles and individual sensibilities is best and don't seek to debate morality of the Force in SWU, only to present a point of view for how we work it in our gaming group. I would not want to change anyone's well thought out/discussed ideas, simply contribute my own well thought out/discussed ideas so there are many at the forum to suit all different sorts of play styles.
| Zarm wrote: | | There is an absolutism that lies beyond such petty clashes of opinion which they may or may not coincide with. |
My point is again,
| Me wrote: | | Yet the statement that it is not evil to defend oneself or others is one such subjection. If you can't describe exactly why and how this works in a mechanical system it becomes an argument of what does/doesn't describe benevolent defence. |
Or in other words, assuming the Force is not a deity, ergo not sentient, ergo works by mechanic, then why is it not evil to defend oneself or others? What is the mechanical reason the Force does not corrupt a biological when they defensively perform a lethal attack, yet it does corrupt a biological when they aggressively perform a lethal attack? What is the mechanic by which the Force is working here?
Thus I would put it to you, that Jedi guidelines such as "the force is only used for knowledge and defence, never for attack" is an imperfect rationalisation for sentient instruction, a simple guideline that generally adheres to the mechanic in which the Force uses, but may not circumstantially. One must know mechanically why to know when/how the guideline is applied. As GM it's our role to assert an assumption of some kind about the mechanical nature of the Force. If a moral absolute, then you asserting a sentient mechanic, a deity.
It must be some mechanic such as directly channelling the Force aggressively between one biological and another, the Force being generated by living things, represents a defective result on the receiver, resulting in things like a current of Force Lightning. Whereas indirectly using the Force in combat such as with a lightsabre doesn't transgress this mechanic, even if done aggressively. Hence this is probably why, in my little assumption here, the jedi developed ways of using weapons such as the lightsabre in combat, where the sith would just as readily use the Force directly for attacks, such as Vader's Telekinetic Kill or Sith Force Lightning.
Note, that is not to say you can't get DSP when using a lightsabre in combat, it just means to me that you get them for pretty much the same reasons as a non-jedi would with a blaster: murdering prisoners, failing to give quarter to injured/surrendering troops, certain pre-emptive lethal aggression, etc.
My point is that your absolute moral rule comes from an impassive mechanical system given the Force is not a deity. As GM I use the mechanical system for rulings, and the morality of it for character debate, kept within gameplay. An extra benefit is that instead of scouring all Jedi statements regarding the Force for their only understanding of how it should work, the players can see the Force working in the game to a particular, consistent system that Jedi Scholastics only circumstantially adheres to, and can make their own observations and add to the body of Jedi Lore as PCs, or become engrossed in some nice character play figuring out exactly when a given piece of Jedi Lore does and doesn't seem to apply in practise. It creates an interesting gameplay dimension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | Or in other words, assuming the Force is not a deity, ergo not sentient, ergo works by mechanic, then why is it not evil to defend oneself or others? |
Well, I think the trouble is, I make no such assumption. The Force has a will. It controls actions but also obeys commands. I do not get the impression that it is simply a matter of mechanics- nor do I get that impression from the Jedi Code and Force sections of the RAW (other than the oversimplicity of the 'fear and anger always lead to the Dark Side,' which admittedly do seem like mechanical functions).
Thus, I think we're coming at this in cross-purposes. You ask "What is the mechanical reason the Force does not corrupt a biological when they defensively perform a lethal attack, yet it does corrupt a biological when they aggressively perform a lethal attack? What is the mechanic by which the Force is working here?" and rightly so- as a mechanic, that makes no sense, thus must not be the case ("What mechanic could support that? That makes no sense. Since the Force works on a mechanics system, that must not be what actually happens."). But, for someone that believes that it isn't a matter of mechanics, the statement is instead a support for their own position ("What mechanic could support that? That makes no sense. But it clearly happens, so the Force must not operate as a mechanical system.") Both arguments are self-sustaining within their own belief system... which is why I think we need to look for evidence support for either side to determine whether the Force DOES treat those two things differently, and from there use that evidence to make a determination of whether the Force works via mechanics or not. because approaching the problem from the other end yields unclear results.
| vanir wrote: | | Thus I would put it to you, that Jedi guidelines such as "the force is only used for knowledge and defence, never for attack" is an imperfect rationalisation for sentient instruction, a simple guideline that generally adheres to the mechanic in which the Force uses, but may not circumstantially. |
If the Force is a nonsentient mechanic-based system, then this would be true. However, I'd have to be looking for any evidence that this is the case before I'd leap to the conclusion of "Actually every source we've learned about the Force from is getting it wrong." Which is ironic, because I'm pretty sure I do that about Force philosophy all the time with the Vergere/Potentium-esque theories I have, so it probably just makes me a hypocrite.
I guess what I'm saying is, I can see how that would be the case if you are right about the nature of the Force, but don't see the rationale/evidence that determines that what you postulate (a nonsentient mechanics-based system) is the nature of the Force in the first place.
Does that make sense? I think our core disagreement comes in the fact that we disagree fundamentally on what the nature of the Force is in the first place, and build outward with that as a foundation (even if we do agree, in principle, that the Jedi got it wrong about the Force- albeit even there, the application lies in different areas! )
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed I think the great thing about an RPG is that it freely adapts to any kind of playing style within the limitations of its gaming system.
I've just been researching some archaic hebrew texts recently and finding disparities between biblical transliteration and subsequent pentacostal interpretation, so that old hebrew laws like the children of foreign nobility in intermarriage retaining their titles despite being born jewish, winds up translated in modern pentacostal bibles as half-bred angelic creatures with supernatural powers, just not what was written and due totally to mistranslation serving preconceptions that a religious text must be discussing fairy tale mythology. Except none of the hebrew text actually does so, it's just all laws and politics, boring actually.
And I thought it was interesting the way psychology and sociology tends to do that, rewrite something mundane but ambiguous, into something inspiring but nonsensical, yet thereby losing touch with the original insights, in this case a surprising ancient comprehension of political and social sciences and how to govern well, substituted for a mythology that really doesn't work so well as a politic.
Being that I have to work GMing an RPG in a way which makes sense to me so I don't spend more time buried in rule books than I am running the game, and don't wind up inadvertently placing contradictions in how the Force is being ruled that tends to confuse and frustrate players; I decided to leave the mythology of the Force to character discussion within gameplay and GMing the Force as an invariant mechanical system.
Doing this you'd be surprised how many different interpretations of how the Force is actually working the players come up with. You can watch the creation of mythologies/philosophies as they are aware you are working by a consistent mechanic, that it strangely adheres to jedi lore when it should yet doesn't when it really shouldn't; yet they don't know what the cheats might be because it's not rationalised and there's no absolutism to argue with or try to misrepresent, it's fascinating.
So what's been working, the Force is very very simple with like one or two fundamental laws, and conscious minds of the players are the ones who, encouraged by SWU jedi lore complicate it and make up mythologies or try to represent it with complex ideas to control it. Seems to be the nature of religion. Allegorically I'd say men cannot comprehend the mind of god because it is too simple, not too complicated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JT Swift
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 132
Location: Austin Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't read over the whole thread but here's my take on the basic question.
When life suffers or dies it leaves a dark side taint in the area. Unlike the light side of the Force which ‘flows’ these taints seem to remain fixed to the matter in the area they occurred [so they follow the planet around its orbit of the sun, and they follow the Dark Side artifact that was made using that suffering].
So if you are directly connected through the Force to a life-form when it dies [or suffers] then part of the taint marks you as well. So now your walking around carrying a blob of Dark Side Taint on you. Lets call it a Dark Side Point shall we?
So if us use the Force to reach out and touch a life-form to hurt it then that means you will be tainted by that suffering. If you just use some other way to inflict the pain [say a lightsabre or a blaster] then the taint won’t be conducted to you. So Force Powers that directly interact with a life-form and cause suffering or death give you a Dark Side Point. Force Powers that merely improve your ability to use other conventional tools are ‘safe’.
This doesn’t mean the Jedi can do anything he wants as long as he uses a lightsabre. Committing evil acts gets him a Dark Side point through his own rage and anger. In essence he’s hurting himself and making himself suffer by damaging his own spirit. This is of course a very thorny question that can lead to all sorts of arguments. But it has no bearing whether the Jedi is using the Force when he commits the action. Its either evil or not evil. And he either gets a DS point or not.
Back to the issue of getting a Dark Side Point for using the Force in a ‘bad way.’ My theory [that its all related to how closely in contact the Jedi is with the suffering life-form] has some interesting implications…
1. Hand to Hand combat might be more Dark Side then Sabre’s and Blasters. Actually touching someone while ending their life might make it much easier to be tainted. I’d leave this one up to GMs as to how they want to rule on it.
2. Droids aren’t life-forms so they don’t give off dark side taints. You can telekinetically smash them up or whatever and not worry about a thing. [Which is what we see in the Movies].
_________________
- J.T. Swift
For Everything about the TARDIS check out
http://www.whoniverse.net/tardis/
For all things Gallifreyan check out
http://meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html |
|
| 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: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't forget the possibility that WEG's interpretation of the Force may be flawed. In ROTJ, one of the very first things Luke did was Force Choke two Gamorreans. By WEG standards, this is an evil act, worthy of two DSP (one for each Gamorrean), but when viewed alongside the prequel Jedi's offensive use of TK, it strongly suggests that Lucas' idea of knowledge and defense is more loosely defined than WEG's.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's more likely that Lucas' Prequel-era ideas of the Force were flawed, since it's one of a million things he clearly forgot how he used to think when he made the originals. If there is a conflict between WEG and modern Lucas, I tend to consider modern Lucas in the wrong... and his viewpoints not so much 'looser' as 'inconsistent and changed over the course of a couple of decades.'
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com
Hard core OT, all the way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Don't forget the possibility that WEG's interpretation of the Force may be flawed. In ROTJ, one of the very first things Luke did was Force Choke two Gamorreans. By WEG standards, this is an evil act, worthy of two DSP (one for each Gamorrean), but when viewed alongside the prequel Jedi's offensive use of TK, it strongly suggests that Lucas' idea of knowledge and defense is more loosely defined than WEG's. |
Probably right and again not debating, just brainstorming but I had a thought. More of trying to intellectualise and reconcile as let's face it, Lucas writing a dramatic movie scene doesn't involve sitting down with the Dalai Lama on the nature of good/evil, whilst WEG are thinking of a game mechanic for ages 12 and up with white hats and black hats and it should tell players not to hit their sister when she teases them. So there's that.
But to suspend disbelief and reconcile this into a mature RPG environment in WEG mechanics I think we can intellectualise and seek to explain it to ourselves, varying explanation individually.
I did run one Dark Side campaign a long while ago, a couple of violent PCs we decided rather than kill off when captured by Vader early in their careers, they were recruited into Imperial City for special training as both were Force Sensitive and eventually became Sovereign Protectors after a stint as fast tracked Stormtroopers and Royal Guardsmen. They ended their careers as powerful Dark Jedi in the Dark Empire era.
This was before any of the WEG sourcebooks/supplements dealing with a dark side campaign so we stumbled our way learning how to run one ourselves. There was precious little RAW for darksiders, the only rule was DSP added to Force skills but there was no guideline on it.
Anyway taught us a little about the gaming mechanics, since dark siders are usually NPCs I think we forget human nature a little because as GM we run the adventure and NPCs are passive to our intentions; give them over to players is a good way to explore any loopholes and runaway cheats in the character or system.
One thing we found with the DSP award system was within a couple of sessions the dark side PCs were topping 30 DSP and it was just getting ridiculous, people like Palpatine and Vader would have thousands of DSP if the RAW was used as it was. Every time you use telekinetic kill just doesn't work as a DSP award system.
We had to adjust the rules and the house rule became, you get a DSP for using the power, not every time you use it. Unless specified that you get one every time you use it. The only powers which do that are things like Force Lightning, the real sithy ones. Things like telekinetic kill, injure/kill, the powers more like a corruption of jedi powers, doesn't actually specify you get a DSP every time you use them, just for using the power.
So as a house rule we decided to interpret that very literally, using the power any amount of times just gets you that one DSP, but if someone teaches you Force Lightning (rare) then you do get one every time you use that because the descript specifies it.
We found that kept DSP accumulation a lot more like NPCs in sourcebooks. We readjusted our darksiders, who run around doing injure/kill and telekinetic kill when skilled enough, all the time, left and right, that's the whole point, they're dark siders and if you hand them over to players and say go silly, they do. But then, that's what a dark sider would do. So this system worked, their DSP progression was pretty much limited by Sith training, and they wanted more DSP because it meant more power, so it made them desperate for more Sith training, the house rule worked out very well because we discovered within it, behaviour among dark sider PCs that simulates what dark siders are supposed to be like in RAW and the movies, whilst limiting them somewhat.
Now if we applied that system to luke, his force choke on the gamorreans only gets him one DSP for knowing/learning/using the power rather than every time he uses it, for knowing/using this corruption of telekinetic jedi powers. And sure enough when you look at Luke's RotJ sheet he has a DSP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KageRyu
Commodore
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1391
Location: Lost in the cracks
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Don't forget the possibility that WEG's interpretation of the Force may be flawed. In ROTJ, one of the very first things Luke did was Force Choke two Gamorreans. By WEG standards, this is an evil act, worthy of two DSP (one for each Gamorrean), but when viewed alongside the prequel Jedi's offensive use of TK, it strongly suggests that Lucas' idea of knowledge and defense is more loosely defined than WEG's. |
Now if we applied that system to luke, his force choke on the gamorreans only gets him one DSP for knowing/learning/using the power rather than every time he uses it, for knowing/using this corruption of telekinetic jedi powers. And sure enough when you look at Luke's RotJ sheet he has a DSP. |
Myself, and many others I know, also always felt it was clearly intended along with other elements in RotJ that Luke was on the path to the dark side...the same path as his father. It seems he knows he's starting to stray when he takes effort to hide his damaged, mechanical hand from Yoda to avoid the need to explain it. He only becomes aware of how much like his father he is when, after lashing out in rage, severs Vader's right hand to see it is mechanical, then looks to his own right hand with aprehension. This is how many of the fans I know persoanlly (grew up with, know in the real world, etc...) have interpreted the events as well. So I offer it up for thought.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra |
|
| 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: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | I think it's more likely that Lucas' Prequel-era ideas of the Force were flawed, since it's one of a million things he clearly forgot how he used to think when he made the originals. :wink: If there is a conflict between WEG and modern Lucas, I tend to consider modern Lucas in the wrong... and his viewpoints not so much 'looser' as 'inconsistent and changed over the course of a couple of decades.' :) |
I can see your point on Lucas' lack of consistency. However, the fact remains that Luke did something to the Gamorreans in his opening scene in ROTJ. All kinds of possibilities can (and have been) argued as to what that was, but Force Choke is the one best supported by the film evidence (the Gamorrean holding his hands up to his throat before he passes out).
If you combine that scene with the prequel Jedi's use of TK in combat, Lucas' inconsistency goes away (at least on that particular subject). I realize that WEG didn't have access to the prequels when designing their Force system, but they did have access to this scene, and I have seen enough WEG screw-ups that it easy to believe this is just another. Seeing as how Lucas is the primary source of all thing Star Wars, and WEG was just playing around in his world, I can't accept the idea that he was wrong and WEG was right.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
