| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| DoubtBreak wrote: |
Can you clarify that a little? Specifically, where do you draw the line on that? By a literal interpretation, if the Empire is conscripting soldiers from an otherwise peaceful planet, then destroying the population to deprive the Empire of resources is perfectly OK (for NFS characters anyway). I don't think that's what you're saying...? |
Conscription is a separate issue. I'm not trying to lay down ironclad rules here. What needs to be done is a cost/benefit analysis. If you can make a major impact on the Imperial war effort, some collateral damage is acceptable. In your conscription scenario, there is not nearly enough disruptive value in exterminating the population. After all, they're just grunts, the Empire gets those from anywhere, and people are relatively cheap to obtain, from an Imperial perspective. If the Rebellion was considering an action there, it would make much more strategic sense to disrupt the Empire's conscription activities and liberate the citizens being conscripted. An action like that would be likely to earn some loyalty towards the Rebel effort, and may provide a future source of recruits and materiel for the Rebel war effort, as well as PR benefit. The benefits of committing Rebel lives to liberating the planet are much higher than those of simply destroying it, in this situation.
The Sienar shipyards are a different matter entirely. It's a manufacturing facility providing armaments to the Imperial war effort. A huge amount of war materiel is produced there, and I'm sure there's a heavy duty R&D department. If you take that out, it strikes a heavy blow to the Empire as they have to spend lots of money retraining and rebuilding the facility, as well as having to deal with possible shortages in the interim. Entire systems could be liberated by the Rebellion if the Empire's shortages last long enough. The benefits of taking out the facility, even with the lives of workers sacrificed, justifies the action, in my book.
| Quote: | | And the whole discussion brings up the issue of whether the Empire is using any forced labor. I wouldn't consider forced laborers legitimate targets, and I assume you wouldn't either...? |
Well, I think my comments on the conscription scenario address this somewhat, but it ultimately comes down to cost/benefit analysis in the end. I can think of scenarios where it is beneficial to liberate the workers, and others where they could be considered acceptable losses. It all depends on what else is at stake.
Going back to the example of Death Star II, let's take the opposite assumption as that of Randal in Clerks. We'll assume that the laborers building it were forced into it. Do you feel comfortable in saying that the Rebellion shouldn't destroy it, even though when completed it can destroy entire planets full of other innocents? I don't. Their loss is regrettable, but necessary.
I know that the heroic/epic nature of most Star Wars campaigns don't usually delve into these aspects of the Rebellion, but they are simply realities of war. There will always be debate after the fact about whether certain actions were justified or not (see the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden bombings in WWII as examples of this), but the fact remains that strategic decisions have a certain cold, mathematical logic to them. It might not be the most compassionate of processes, but it is a necessary one, and I don't see these types of necessities as evil, or worthy of DSPs.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DoubtBreak wrote: | | masque wrote: | | See, I view the workers killed as legitimate military targets as well. Any destruction of resources hurts the Empire's war production, and that includes human resources. |
Can you clarify that a little? Specifically, where do you draw the line on that? By a literal interpretation, if the Empire is conscripting soldiers from an otherwise peaceful planet, then destroying the population to deprive the Empire of resources is perfectly OK (for NFS characters anyway). I don't think that's what you're saying...?
And the whole discussion brings up the issue of whether the Empire is using any forced labor. I wouldn't consider forced laborers legitimate targets, and I assume you wouldn't either...? |
Agreed. IMO it would be one thing, to say, walk into a training camp, and blow it up. Another to walk into a city where recruitment is ongoing and plant enough toxin to neuter te city.
| Quote: | | Going back to the example of Death Star II, let's take the opposite assumption as that of Randal in Clerks. We'll assume that the laborers building it were forced into it. Do you feel comfortable in saying that the Rebellion shouldn't destroy it, even though when completed it can destroy entire planets full of other innocents? I don't. Their loss is regrettable, but necessary. |
But that 'regretable' part should imo be key. If the one doing the killing shows remorese and tries to make better of it (like tracking down the families of those killed to make reparations too) that would be one thing. If they did it without another thought to those lives lost, that imo is being as evil as the empire and should warrant a DSP.
| Quote: | | I know that the heroic/epic nature of most Star Wars campaigns don't usually delve into these aspects of the Rebellion, but they are simply realities of war. There will always be debate after the fact about whether certain actions were justified or not (see the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden bombings in WWII as examples of this), but the fact remains that strategic decisions have a certain cold, mathematical logic to them. It might not be the most compassionate of processes, but it is a necessary one, and I don't see these types of necessities as evil, or worthy of DSPs. |
Just cause it might be coldly logical, does not imo entail it is not evil or DSP worthy.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But that 'regretable' part should imo be key. If the one doing the killing shows remorese and tries to make better of it (like tracking down the families of those killed to make reparations too) that would be one thing. If they did it without another thought to those lives lost, that imo is being as evil as the empire and should warrant a DSP. |
Reparations are dealt with post-war as a matter of course. Of course it's a regrettable act. I don't, however, think that reparations are necessary to the families of workers on the Death Star or working in military shipyards. If they are forced labor, sure. If they're just people hired to do a job, then no. They are actively participating in the war effort, and are knowingly working in a high-risk, military area. They are most likely paid a good wage for that risk, as contractors for the military are in Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me if the Empire compensates those families, but the Rebellion is under no obligation to provide reparations to the families of those actively engaged in facilitating the Empire's ability to subjugate thousands of worlds.
The only people the Rebellion would owe any reparations to would be the theorized forced laborers, or innocents who perhaps get caught in crossfires, or civilians who get bombed by accident. If you are an active participant in the war, whether active military or in a support role, you are a legitimate military target, and you know it. If you're not willing to take that risk, you don't take the job.
| Quote: | | Just cause it might be coldly logical, does not imo entail it is not evil or DSP worthy. |
It doesn't mean it is evil or DSP worthy, either. It depends on the circumstance. If we assume the alternate variant of the Sienar scenario, where a Rebel strike force takes it out, I consider that an example of the cold C/B analysis that goes on in war all the time that is not worthy of DSPs, for the reasons previously given.
An example of something cold, logical, and evil would be the way the Germans systematically went about attempting to exterminate the Jews in WWII. They had an entire bureaucracy set up for that job, and went about it with characteristic German efficiency. Most of the people in the process didn't do anything that was personally evil, they tallied numbers and kept records.
Without question, however, the entire purpose of that bureaucracy was evil to the core. In this scenario, even though everyone is touched by evil, the only people who would be deserving of DSPs in a Star Wars context are the ones giving the orders and the ones running the camps. The bureaucrats, while definitely participants, don't have nearly enough of a personal involvement in the evil acts to earn DSPs, unless they are Force sensitive in some way. DSPs for NFSs need viscerality that doesn't exist in the given scenario. Every single person in that chain, however, from the people giving orders, to the bureaucrats keeping records, and of course the Nazis in those camps were legitimate military targets. Even the bureaucrats whose only activities are to tally numbers and keep records. Their personal activities aren't particularly evil on their own, but what they do aids the Nazis in committing their atrocities, and that makes them fair game, and because of what they do, their families aren't deserving of any kind of reparations.
The prisoners who were forced to work in Nazi munition factories occasionally were killed by Allied bombings. This was horrible, but a necessity of the C/B analysis of strategy. Their families were most definitely deserving of reparations from the Allied forces as soon as that was possible, (after the war), and to the best of my knowledge, all those families that could be found were compensated. As horrifying as the consequences of those bombings were, and even though they were the result of that cold C/B logic, I can't see anyone in the Allied chain of command who would be DSP-worthy for those types of actions, because the overall goal, that of defeating the Nazis and liberating Europe, was just.
The only thing I will add to that is that whether or not reparations are paid, or will be paid doesn't enter into my decision-making process of whether something is DSP worthy. DSPs are given out immediately when evil acts are committed, whether by Force sensitives or non-sensitives. They don't wait around to see if people get paid before they attach themselves to a person. Whether or not reparations are awarded (if the circumstances are warranted) can be a good indication of why DSPs were or weren't awarded in the first place, but I don't think there's any kind of conditional relationship there. I continue to hold the view that DSPs are primarily a concern of those who are sensitive to the Force, and that non-sensitives really have to go out of their way to do something evil enough for them to earn them while not in the process of spending Force points. The non-sensitives have much more freedom in that respect, in my opinion, and that's as it should be.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoubtBreak
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| masque wrote: | | Conscription is a separate issue. I'm not trying to lay down ironclad rules here. What needs to be done is a cost/benefit analysis. |
Aha... that's where I mis-interpreted. Makes more sense now.
| masque wrote: | | I can think of scenarios where it is beneficial to liberate the workers, and others where they could be considered acceptable losses. It all depends on what else is at stake. |
And, I assume, whether a reasonable alternative exists, in which unwilling participants aren't killed.
| masque wrote: | | Going back to the example of Death Star II, let's take the opposite assumption as that of Randal in Clerks. We'll assume that the laborers building it were forced into it. Do you feel comfortable in saying that the Rebellion shouldn't destroy it, even though when completed it can destroy entire planets full of other innocents? I don't. Their loss is regrettable, but necessary. |
Assuming there's no better alternative, that's probably true. Of course, if you keep doing things like that, sooner or later people are going to start wondering how much better than the Empire the Rebellion actually is. That's not really relevant to the issue, because public image isn't much of a deciding factor in receiving DSPs, but it's another reality of war (hence the subject of reparations).
| masque wrote: | | ...the fact remains that strategic decisions have a certain cold, mathematical logic to them. It might not be the most compassionate of processes, but it is a necessary one... |
| garhkal wrote: | | Just cause it might be coldly logical, does not imo entail it is not evil or DSP worthy. |
| masque wrote: | | It doesn't mean it is evil or DSP worthy, either. It depends on the circumstance. |
(Sorry about multi-quoting like that.)
If I could suggest, it seems like the difference is whether the person making that decision has the best interests of everyone (and not just on their side) in mind, or is simply out to destroy their enemy. I suppose that would be the difference between doing a "cost/benefit analysis" as Masque mentioned, and deciding that some lives don't have value because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (which I think is what Garhkal was talking about, and is definitely what I was thinking of). I don't see anything wrong with being logical about war, but once you have to start describing it as "coldly logical," it seems to me that you're flirting with the dark side- not necessarily gaining DSPs, but also not exempt from them just because there's logic involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh, I see. My use of the word "cold" seems to be the bone of contention. I am using cold in the sense of "emotion-less". Basically, trying to look at the situation from as purely a logistical standpoint as possible, towards the goal of providing least harm for an equitable return in strategic value. The general welfare of civilians and non-combatants as a result of military action is a prime concern, but the coldness comes from trying to eliminate sentimentality from the decision-making process, so as to reach as objectively beneficial result as possible. Does that clear it up?
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It doesn't mean it is evil or DSP worthy, either. It depends on the circumstance. If we assume the alternate variant of the Sienar scenario, where a Rebel strike force takes it out, I consider that an example of the cold C/B analysis that goes on in war all the time that is not worthy of DSPs, for the reasons previously given. |
Depending on how htey went about it, it MIGHT be worthy of a dsp. Just cause somehting is a legitimat target, does not negate the possibility of dsps.
| Quote: | | Assuming there's no better alternative, that's probably true. Of course, if you keep doing things like that, sooner or later people are going to start wondering how much better than the Empire the Rebellion actually is |
Good point. And this is part of my argument. If one does evil, even if necessary, to defeat a greater evil, it is still evil. And to those looking in on the side lines, there is going to be atime where they wonder if the lesser evils are just as bad as the greater ones.
| Quote: | | If I could suggest, it seems like the difference is whether the person making that decision has the best interests of everyone (and not just on their side) in mind, or is simply out to destroy their enemy. I suppose that would be the difference between doing a "cost/benefit analysis" as Masque mentioned, and deciding that some lives don't have value because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (which I think is what Garhkal was talking about, and is definitely what I was thinking of). I don't see anything wrong with being logical about war, but once you have to start describing it as "coldly logical," it seems to me that you're flirting with the dark side- not necessarily gaining DSPs, but also not exempt from them just because there's logic involved. |
WEll said. The Darkside is not just about anger, hate and fear. It is also an absence of compasison, hope and caring. When you delve into the 'coldly logical' where you are consistently deciding if this planet's worht of people's lives are worth more than that planets, that is loosing compasison.
| Quote: | Ahh, I see. My use of the word "cold" seems to be the bone of contention. I am using cold in the sense of "emotion-less". Basically, trying to look at the situation from as purely a logistical standpoint as possible, towards the goal of providing least harm for an equitable return in strategic value. The general welfare of civilians and non-combatants as a result of military action is a prime concern, but the coldness comes from trying to eliminate sentimentality from the decision-making process, so as to reach as objectively beneficial result as possible. Does that clear it up?
|
That actually makes it sound more heartless. [/quote]
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | WEll said. The Darkside is not just about anger, hate and fear. It is also an absence of compasison, hope and caring. When you delve into the 'coldly logical' where you are consistently deciding if this planet's worht of people's lives are worth more than that planets, that is loosing compasison. |
For Force sensitives, compassion is an issue, for non-sensitives, not so much, in my opinion, if they're not actively being evil as well.
| Quote: | | That actually makes it sound more heartless. |
That's the realities of war as I understand it from talking to military officers of my acquaintance. Heartlessness is sometimes necessary. If it's not combined with evil, I see no problem.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoubtBreak
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| masque wrote: | | Ahh, I see. My use of the word "cold" seems to be the bone of contention. I am using cold in the sense of "emotion-less". Basically, trying to look at the situation from as purely a logistical standpoint as possible, towards the goal of providing least harm for an equitable return in strategic value. The general welfare of civilians and non-combatants as a result of military action is a prime concern, but the coldness comes from trying to eliminate sentimentality from the decision-making process, so as to reach as objectively beneficial result as possible. Does that clear it up? |
Pretty much, as far as NFS characters go. Even the Jedi try to avoid letting their emotions affect their decisions. I was kind of interpreting "cold" as "uncaring," which is entirely different (and much more DSP-worthy, I think you'll agree).
I'm a little wary of the phrases "eliminate sentimentality" and "objectively beneficial" as being easily mis-used, but when you say "a prime concern," I assume you mean "prime" as in "primary" - "first or highest in rank or importance" (dictionary.com)? That being the case, I don't think any of us are looking at it too differently. Turning to the dark side happens by the 4th DSP (on average), and if they're making sure the wrong people don't get killed when there's an alternative, NFS heroes really shouldn't have to worry about that kind of accumulation.
As you pointed out, there a certain realities to war (though the Star Wars movies don't deal with those realities much), such as human costs and unavoidable/accidental collateral damage. Then again, another reality is that in war, you eventually have to make a tough decision, and there may not be a good option. Maybe you need to decide between saving hostages and eliminating a target that's threatening other people. You have to make a less-than-ideal decision and live with it, and I think having the occasional threat of gaining a DSP is a good way to reflect this.
Of course, this treatment of Star Wars isn't going to be for everyone. I've just found that when a campaign starts getting too hack-&-slash, it's useful to create some moral dilemmas where the easy or safe solutions have DSPs attached, and the characters need to find alternatives. If they get the DSP, they generally have an opportunity to get rid of it on their next adventure or mission anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As you pointed out, there a certain realities to war (though the Star Wars movies don't deal with those realities much), such as human costs and unavoidable/accidental collateral damage. Then again, another reality is that in war, you eventually have to make a tough decision, and there may not be a good option. Maybe you need to decide between saving hostages and eliminating a target that's threatening other people. You have to make a less-than-ideal decision and live with it, and I think having the occasional threat of gaining a DSP is a good way to reflect this.
Of course, this treatment of Star Wars isn't going to be for everyone. I've just found that when a campaign starts getting too hack-&-slash, it's useful to create some moral dilemmas where the easy or safe solutions have DSPs attached, and the characters need to find alternatives. If they get the DSP, they generally have an opportunity to get rid of it on their next adventure or mission anyway. |
Well said. IMO that use of DSPs is a good way to reflect the 'hard decisions'. Not every one is going to be a good choice and a bad choice. There might be times you have a bad one, and an even worse one... and that would be where the dsps could come into play.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if I get the "hard decision earning DSP" thing. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
EG baddie has bomb in building. Bad decision let it blwo. Even worse decision, give into his demands for X explosive/drug/disease which he would use elsewhere...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | EG baddie has bomb in building. Bad decision let it blwo. Even worse decision, give into his demands for X explosive/drug/disease which he would use elsewhere... |
I don't see any reason for DSPs in either of those situations. Both options suck, but neither of them are evil. You need to be actively evil to get a DSP, not just put in a bad situation.
Letting it blow can actually be a good decision if you can get the people out of the building. Bomb squads generally detonate explosive devices in place after they get people to a safe distance.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14214
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, to me the evil would come into play by letting the mad bomber, blow up those innocents... I see it as allowing evil to floruish. DO nothing is as bad as doing the evil itself, and yes i have awarded dsps for it in the past. Like the time i had a 'side plot' going where the pcs thrice encountered a murderer, and could have stood a reall good chance to take him out (which would have garnered them several contacts) but they chose to ignore it. I awarded everyone a dsp for it, and only 1 of the 5 players had a heartache from it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I would certainly want the players to try to intervene in that situation, I can only see inaction as DSP worthy for Force sensitive characters. They're the only ones with an obligation to act like heroes. I'd have to know what the alternate course of action the players wanted to pursue was, as well. If they don't have any ability in demolitions, for instance, it's Chaotic Stupid for them to enter the building, and I would expect them to figure out another course of action, like, oh, finding someone who does have the ability. Only if the characters are a bunch of Jedi or something would I award DSPs in that situation,
I don't view inaction as actively evil enough for non-sensitives to earn DSPs. Even then, if the Jedi can come up with an alternate plan that doesn't involve suicidally entering the building, I wouldn't award DSPs, even if the plan fails, since they tried.
I think non-sensitives would have to be doing something to actively help the bomber in the situation you describe before I'd award DSPs, even if they screw up an important side-plot.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gry Sarth
Jedi
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5304
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
With great power comes great responsibility.
That's why it's so easy for a Jedi to earn DSPs, but not for a non-Force Sensitive. And besides that, inaction depends greatly on your own capabilities to deal with the situation. If a well-trained, well-equiped, capable strike team sits idly while a terrorist threatens hostages, they are denying their responsibility and therefore might earn a DSP. Now, in the same situation, an ordinary housewife shouldn't get a DSP for not trying to free the hostages. It's not her responsibility, she doesn't have the power to deal with the situation and shouldn't be expected to. The same is valid for your players. Just because they are Player Characters it doesn't mean they hold the weight of the world on their backs, there are things that are simply beyond their scope of responsibility. Sure, defeating the Empire is a noble quest, but you shouldn't go to hell just because you don't feel up to it.
_________________
"He's Gry Sarth, of course he has the stats for them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
