A new 'to dsp or not to dsp...'

[garhkal]

Had a pair of situations at Origins, where one member of the party came close to gaining a dsp... twice.

His first one, came when they were facing off against a Trex looking creature, out for food, (he was chasing some bantha, and they stepped in to stop it). The pcs hurt the creature, and it started to flee. He went after it, and stunned it into unconsiousness. THEN killed it. Would that have warrented one?


The second was later in the same module. The pcs had, up to now, been shot down by pirates, and knew of a few other possible ships that may have suffered the same fate. They encounter one, an imperial lambda shuttle, carrying ship parts and medical supplies. The party and the imps make a deal to fix the imps ship first, and then go back to theirs, and the imps give them the parts they need to fix theirs... BUT one of the party decides to plant a program in the imps astrogation computer, that would exchange any coordinates they put into the system, with prepmade ones shunting them into a sun. He did this as a doublecross. To me that was over the top, especially with people that were willing to help them out, no questions (and no double cross on the imps part)...... He decided after i gave the warning, to include a 'fail safe' that if he sent a code, would errase the program.... so when the time came to party company, and the pcs saw the imps were playing it straight up, he deactivated the code.

Would that have warrented a DSP had he not done so???
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[masque]

If those were Jedi characters doing it, probably. Otherwise, no.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

[Grimace]

I feel the same as masque. No on both counts if the person was not a Jedi.

The first instance was unnecessary, but not evil. The creature was wounded, so potentially more dangerous left alive. The second instance is simply a case of someone more paranoid and hostile towards Imperials than others. While the second instance is certainly more hostile and treacherous, the character was doing something that he deemed necessary to remove future threats to the rebels and/or himself. Sure, not every character would be so paranoid or vindictive, but at the same time, there are rebels out there that ARE that way, for whatever reason.

The second case may be iffy were the character Force Sensative, and would fall into a judgement call for the GM at the time. Was the character intentionally malicious or evil in his sadistic desire sabotage the Imperials? Or did he do it with grim realization that if these Imps got away, he'd likely have to fight them again anyway, and in the meantime they would likely kill others as well? Mindset has a lot to do with whether I give out a DSP for a Force Sensative character doing an act like that.

But definitely a no for the first instance.

[garhkal]

It was more of
"they are imperials. Don't matter if they are good, and honerable, they are the enemy"...



Well, to the way i saw it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Chandra Mindarass]

Well, I'd say yes to both. The first one is killing a helpless creature, the second one would have been cold-hearted murder based on prejudices on the side of the player. I'm pretty strict about this. DSPs aren't really a punishment to a non force user, but any force user will be able to tell the character's inclination. This is the way I use DSPs, maybe I'm a little spoiled from playing Kotor.

I gave a warning to a player, who wanted to blow up an imperial Stardestroyer (long story short), which was in a repair dock, just to find out the hull code and reaction time of the other forces. Thousands of people on board and none of them involved in an evil action, although the probably were in the past and will most likely be again in the future.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[Chandra Mindarass]

P.S.: Han shot first.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[Camero]

Maybe No, on the animal death
YES! on the Imp murders

Sure, Han shot first - he was non-force sensitive and being threatened with his life. (the IMPs and animal were not longer threats)

For the Trex creature, if they wounded it badly then finishing it off when it was no longer a threat, that can still be an act of mercy. If it was a slaughter for the pure joy of causing death, then maybe this instance - combined with earlier or later similar death mongering among nonsentient creatures (often a sign of psychotic tendencies) - then it might warrant a DSP (eventually, if not then)

As for the IMPs - that seems to be a rather clear cut DSP to me. Turning around and killing people who had "buried the hachet" and cooperated with you to save all your skins would be multiple murder. If you crossed paths with the IMPs months later and were on opposite sides of the fight they would be fair game. Killing them when they had honored their part of the deal, is what you would expect from vicious villians (Leia telling Tarkin where the Rebel base was and Tarkin still blowing up Alderean). Even in our earthly wars there have been times of ceasefire where the opposing sides cooperated to the benefit of both and then go their seperate ways. A better way to beat the IMPs would be for them to survive and realize that Rebels are people too and that the Imperial propaganda didn't hold water in their experience.

Killing them would have been DSP worthy - IMO
_________________
"What a wonderful smell you've discovered"

[Chandra Mindarass]

Yeah, well - I might be a bit too strict about it, but I think you should take life only in the face of a dire threat to your or to other peoples' lifes.

The harshness of my judgement has a very interesting game effect: It causes situations, where my players begin to ask, whether it's really THAT evil to kill bounty hunter xy, because he would just proceed and hunt more rebels and probably sell his knowledge about the group to the empire. Yeah, maybe he would, but you can't know. Go ahead, kill him - kill his crew, kill everybody in his docking bay, just to be safe. The dark side is easier and the light side will only bring you into trouble when you least need it. It's not like the Sith's vision of galactic peace would be that different from a Jedi's vision, but it's the tools they use, that make the difference.

The thing, that makes the debate about whether Han shot first or not so interesting, is that it shines two different spots on the character. Of course, Greedo was a threat and Solo did what most "pirate/smuggler" templates would do: "Uhh, I shoot him." Han Solo was not being the villain in that scene. He just did what most people in his situation would have done, but it would give them a DSP in my opinion.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[masque]

I disagree.

I could see how an argument could be made for Han getting a DSP in that situation if he was force-sensitive, but he's not, and even then, it's sketchy. For non-sensitives to get DSP's they have to do something particularly evil, according to the rules. Greedo has a gun in Han's face and has just told Han that he's looking forward to killing him. Han shooting him is self-defense at that point. Greedo is making the classic villain mistake of talking too much, giving the opponent time to counterattack.

KOTOR's light/dark side system is a bad comparison because you ARE playing a force sensitive character, and the stricter rules apply. Non-sensitives have the freedom of a lot more moral ambiguity.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

[Chandra Mindarass]

Sure, like I said. I have a very strict take on this. Han was 100% right in shooting first. Does Greedo really have a blaster in his...well...Rodian...hand...type thingies?
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[Chandra Mindarass]

I should add that I allow non-force users some freedom in the exegesis of the rules, but if I have a bad feeling about it, the player will have a DSP about it.
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[masque]

Sounds kind of like you're using it as an alignment system, like D&D. Not one of my favorite things, but it's your rule.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

[Chandra Mindarass]

.oO(Never thought of it that way.) I guess you're right to some degree. Not in the way of "No, your character is chaotic good, you can't do that." but in the way of "You feel the overseer of the spaceport district is a cruel man, who is full of regrets and negativity." or "This smuggler isn't as mean as she tries to sound. You feel that she has a good heart and only tries to survive in this vipernest."

2 or 3 DSPs easily accumulate over the course of a smuggling career. It's illegal after all and you get to deal with all kinds of shady people and probably have to kill one or two of them "just in case". Han Solo was smuggling hard drugs, don't forget that!
_________________
RPGGamer (featuring a big portion of DLOS-stats!)

>-q=p---

[Pel]

Hmmm...Way too much morality for my tastes.

For the original two situations, I'd say no on both counts. I agree that stunning, then killing the wounded animal was excessive, but not Dark Side. Sabotaging the Imperials' navicomp was definitely sneaky and under-handed, but there is a war on afterall. I think the latter would depend a lot on the tone of the campaign. Personally, I'd have rewarded the player for innovative thinking.

Ok, on to Han. Blasting Greedo was a necessity. I have no doubt that Greedo was about to shoot. Han just beat him to the punch.

Yes, he was a scoundrel and a pirate, but he was basically a good and decent person. He did rescue Chewbacca after all, at great personal cost. Did he run drugs? Yup. Did that make Han evil? No. I'm not sure I'd give even a Jedi DSP for running spice, although they're explanation better be good.
_________________
Aha!

[masque]

Yeah, it largely depends on how one views spice. In some sources, it's viewed as something as bad as heroin, in others a simple aphrodisiac. (I am aware of the 3 or so different varieties of spice, and am not confusing them.)

I take the view in the running of my game that spice prohibition is equivalent to alcohol prohibition in the US back in the 20's and 30's. Alcohol itself is relatively benign, and can be used responsibly, but when abused causes lots of problems. The prohibition itself, as with alcohol during Prohibition, is largely the cause of the crime associated with it.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.