| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Going over how DSPs are handled imo is one of the first things AFTER character creation a GM should do.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The main point that I was trying to make is that the dividing line between light and dark is rarely clear cut, and that much of the space in between is a moral "grey area". |
I think Whill was just pointing out that your comment didn't do as good a job as you probably would have liked of illustrating the idea of a moral gray area. It came across as very black and white. I am certainly in agreement with you that the dividing line is sometimes less than clear. Especially for the character.
| Quote: | | Your list of other factors to consider is quite comprehensive, but those are all issues more easily considered in a non-combat environment, where the characters have time to consider the issues. |
Actually I doubt it is comprehensive, but it is a start. Some of the issues may be difficult to consider in a combat situation perhaps, but not all. One of the reasons that many militaries use rules of engagement is so that soldiers don't have to work out all these questions on the fly. But even if they have to work things out on the fly, in my view the force doesn't give you a pass just because you were in a hurry. But I wasn't intending this as a list for the character. I intended it as a list for the GM and the player to aid them in figuring out if a DSP was warranted based on what the character did. Since neither I nor my co-GM warn experienced players before they earn a DSP (more the reverse actually), I typically figure out the result of the actions post facto.
| Quote: | | I won't try to posit examples, but an Infiltrator could very easily find himself in a situation where it would be detrimental to the mission's success to leave a live prisoner behind. |
I agree. And he may have to either risk the mission or take the DSP. I'm fine with that as a moral choice in the game. But that is one reason I would tend to think very few Infiltrators are FS. It is similar to your point on them being recruited based on rage. These are bad men and women and most of them should not be force sensitive or else they will quickly become that which they fight. Or as Nietzsche said:
| In "Beyond Good and Evil", Aphorism 146 Nietzsche wrote: | | He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. |
In my view that is always a strong risk for FS characters.
| Quote: | | To order an Infiltrator to create confusion and panic within the enemy ranks with a few well placed knife blows is a far cry from the callous slaughter of millions of civilians for the sake of ethnic purity. Both acts may be evil, but even the Bible never actually said "Thou shalt not kill" (The literal translation more closely approximates "Thou shalt not murder"). |
The WEG DSP mechanic seems far stricter than the biblical 'thou shalt not murder people from your own society' commandment.
| Quote: | | Part of an Infiltrator's job description is to get in behind enemy lines and "sow confusion and consternation in secure areas", and a very effective way to do that is knifing soldiers in their sleep. |
True. But efficieny does not make it moral. In my view, CompForce troopers have execution of hostages taken to ensure compliance of a population and retaliatory killing in response to acts of rebellion as part of their job description. That doesn't make those acts moral - even though they are often effective ways of subduing a population.
| crmcneill wrote: | | It seems somewhat farcical to say that the dividing line between good and evil is whether or not the person you killed with the knife was asleep or awake. |
I don't agree that it is a farcical distinction. Whether a person is, or is not, currently a threat seems a very reasonable place to differentiate killing in self defense from murder. Considering that even Vader was redeemed and few if any characters can tell how many DSPs their target has, how else should a character differentiate in-game between a justified killing and a murder of convenience? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Both acts may be evil, but even the Bible never actually said "Thou shalt not kill" |
Actually, millions of Bibles do say exactly that. But as your parenthetical statement brings up, translation is a factor...
| crmcneill wrote: | | (The literal translation more closely approximates "Thou shalt not murder") |
True, but then morality is still the question because then it becomes a matter of how you define "murder" vs. "justified killing". In the case of the Israelites in the Bible you brought up, murder was defined by Moses as killing your own kind, fellow Israelites, one of God's chosen people killing another one. In that culture it was perfectly ok (and even encouraged) to slaughter Canaanites (including women and children) because they worshipped false deities and already occupied the land that Moses said their god promised them.
The same question is still very relavent today. Is it murder to kill in self-defense? Most would say no. No country officially considers it murder to kill enemies of war. Advocates of capital punishment do not consider it murder to kill someone that murdered another.
"Evil is a point of view, Anakin" said the evil main villain of the saga.
We can debate real world morality and some will argue that morality is subjective to culture. However, morality is not portrayed so subjectively in the SW films. Being fiction, the stories do contain messages about right and wrong. You as a real world viewer of the films may agree or disagree with all the messages, but the messages indicate there are some moral absolutes in Star Wars.
Yes, WEG did interpret some of that for the game, but it was not WEG interpreting real world morality. It was WEG interpreting morality as portrayed in the films. Maybe that interpretation was filtered by their own sense of morality, but the Dark Side rules were an attempt to interpret the films, or at least to make something applicable to player characters that seems to capture the essense of the films' messages about morality. I'm not saying they were completely successful at their intention, just stating what it was.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| 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: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | "Evil is a point of view, Anakin" said the evil main villain of the saga. |
And what he said was true. From a certain point of view. Part of Palpatine's genius was using the truth to prove an evil point. "Even the devil quotes scripture for his own ends." I think Bren did a great job laying out some of the complications involved in an Infiltrator's job description, and the evil is not necessarily in the act itself, but in the details behind the act.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | However, morality is not portrayed so subjectively in the SW films. Being fiction, the stories do contain messages about right and wrong. You as a real world viewer of the films may agree or disagree with all the messages, but the messages indicate there are some moral absolutes in Star Wars. |
Ummm... How exactly do you balance that with Kenobi's line, "only a Sith deals in absolutes,"?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | However, morality is not portrayed so subjectively in the SW films. Being fiction, the stories do contain messages about right and wrong. You as a real world viewer of the films may agree or disagree with all the messages, but the messages indicate there are some moral absolutes in Star Wars. |
Ummm... How exactly do you balance that with Kenobi's line, "only a Sith deals in absolutes,"? |
Two ways
(1) Obi-wan believes that some cases cannot be decided by following a simple formula. He does not believe in a strict or simple deontological ethics.
(2) Original films, prequel films. Always in motion the past is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | However, morality is not portrayed so subjectively in the SW films. Being fiction, the stories do contain messages about right and wrong. You as a real world viewer of the films may agree or disagree with all the messages, but the messages indicate there are some moral absolutes in Star Wars. |
Ummm... How exactly do you balance that with Kenobi's line, "only a Sith deals in absolutes,"? |
I think there are moral absolutes for The Force, but those morals are difficult for mortals to grasp. Jedi allow The Force to guide them in their decisions, thus getting through the clutter of the ethical theories of mortals.
The Sith, I imagine, use absolutes from the ethical theories, arbitrarily, to justify their actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | The Sith, I imagine, use absolutes from the ethical theories, arbitrarily, to justify their actions. |
The Sith absolute seems to be whatever enhances and increases my personal power is absolutely a good thing.
Here's another way to approach the difference. Which should one value more - principles or people?
This reminds me of a quote:
| Quote: | Principles come and go… human souls are immortal, and you should therefore throw in your lot with the greater part.
--Lois McMaster Bujold Brothers in Arms |
Which do the Sith value more? Which do the Jedi value more?
Do these answers change during the different eras in Star Wars? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pardon me for taking your statements out of their original order.
| Bren wrote: | | Here's another way to approach the difference. Which should one value more - principles or people? |
This is like the great debate between Utilitarian vs. Kantian ethics, where the former calculates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This 'hedonistic calculus' can prescribe doing horrible things to just a few people in order to improve the lives of a multitude. This ethical theory runs into problems when you cannot really compare good/harm from one person to another. How do you measure and divide/multiply quantities of utility?
It can also be used to justify horrible things.
Kantian ethics are the solid principles you speak of, which prescribe that people should adhere to principles, regardless of what the practicalities are.
| Bren wrote: | | The Sith absolute seems to be whatever enhances and increases my personal power is absolutely a good thing. |
Yes, I agree - I think that the rigid absolutes is not so much internalized by the Sith as the philosophies are used to convince others. Now, I say that, but I realize that the Sith do not tend to operate in the open. As such, they do not operate by persuasion. So, I guess I am not sure what Kenobi is referring to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | This is like the great debate between Utilitarian vs. Kantian ethics... |
Well I am squarely in the middle there. I am a utilitarian, but tend to default to a rule oriented process since it is faster and often you don't have time to calculate the full utilitarian effects. But a strict adherence to a deontological ethcis a la Kant just seems cloud cuckoo crazy to me.
But I didn't really intend it as a utilitarian vs. deontological debate. I intended the dichotomy as differentiating caring about individual people, not masses of people, vs strictly following rules or principles.
The absolute that I think OB1 is opposing is the false choice that Anakin sets up that a person (Padme, OB1, Mace Windu, Yoda) must either be with or for Anakin all the way or else they are against Anakin. That is a Sith type of absolute statement.
| Quote: | | It can also be used to justify horrible things. |
As has Kantian ethics throughout all known history.
| Quote: | | Kantian ethics are the solid principles you speak of, which prescribe that people should adhere to principles, regardless of what the practicalities are. |
I think the Jedi came to believe in a lazy sort of Kantian ethics. The Dark Side was clouding their vision and it became harder and harder for them to see enough via the Force (Farsense, Sense Force, Sense Path) for them to calculate what the best action for the most number of beings was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | But I didn't really intend it as a utilitarian vs. deontological debate. I intended the dichotomy as differentiating caring about individual people, not masses of people, vs strictly following rules or principles. |
How is this really a distinction other than one of scale?
| Bren wrote: | | The absolute that I think OB1 is opposing is the false choice that Anakin sets up that a person (Padme, OB1, Mace Windu, Yoda) must either be with or for Anakin all the way or else they are against Anakin. That is a Sith type of absolute statement. |
Ah, okay, I forget the context of the statement.
| Bren wrote: | | As has Kantian ethics throughout all known history. |
Of course. The question is not which philosophy offers atrocious misuse. Any philosophical principle can be stretched into absurdity. I think the more interesting is what philosophies lend themselves toward more persuasive narratives - and what narratives work best with what cultures.
But that's rather off-topic. In order to coerce the conversation back on-topic, I wonder what you all might have to say about the dominant ethos of the dominant parts of the galaxy, in terms of public opinion. How fat, dumb and happy are the Core Worlds at the time of the Rebellion? Is their (assumed) complacency a function of fear, apathy, or consent? (sure, a mix of these things, but which is dominant?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | However, morality is not portrayed so subjectively in the SW films. Being fiction, the stories do contain messages about right and wrong. You as a real world viewer of the films may agree or disagree with all the messages, but the messages indicate there are some moral absolutes in Star Wars. |
Ummm... How exactly do you balance that with Kenobi's line, "only a Sith deals in absolutes,"? |
Which always made me laugh, as it in of itself Is an absolute..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10438
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Kenobi's line, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." |
Star Wars is fiction. It is a story. Cinematic literature!
Kenobi stating, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" in that wording, is a rich example of dramatic irony. Kenobi worded the phrase as an absolute. If Kenobi's statement were true, that would logically mean that Obi-Wan is a Sith for making that absolute statement. (And Obi-Wan, never was, isn't and never will be a Sith.) It has a couple purposes. First of all, it emphasizes the tragedy that had occured in this film by Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi. Things are not what they should be. The Chancellor of the Republic is the Sith Lord leading the Separatists. The Jedi who Kenobi said the line to was believed by many to be the Chosen One who will bring balance to the Force by destroying the Sith Order, but he joined it.
And Lucas is fond of parallels. Compare/contrast Revenge of the Sith with Return of the Jedi...
In RotS, Anakin is tempted by Palpatine to kill his current Sith apprentice which is part of the overall temptation to replace him. In RotJ, Luke is tempted by Palpatine to kill his current Sith apprentice and replace him. Anakin kills Dooku, but Luke doesn't kill Vader.
Anakin gives in to temptation again to cut off Mace Wendu's hand to save Palpatine because he thinks that will save his wife (who is also the mother of his children), which allows for Palpatine to kill Mace Windu with Sith Lightning that pushes him to a great fall. Luke cuts off Vader's hand then Palpatine uses Sith lightning on Luke, almost killing him but Anakin the Jedi returns to save his son by taking the Sith Lightning and throwing Palpatine to a great fall.
In RotS Obi-Wan makes an absolute statement to Anakin about only Sith dealing in absolutes, then in RotJ he makes a statement to Luke about personal truth being subjective (but it was in defense of his misleading Luke about Vader being Luke's father, not a statement about morality in general). In RotS, Palpatine tells Anakin that evil is a point of view, but in RotJ Palpatine makes many absolute statements, many of which are proven wrong.
And also keep in mind that characters can grow and change. Obi-Wan is the not the primary protagonist of either trilogy, but I think it would be shortsighted to say that he is completely static. Characters can grown and change, but the messages of the story that are most important are told at the end of the saga (i.e. Return of the Jedi).
Bren, you seemed to present a common opinion among Star Wars fans that there is a severe disconnect between the prequels and the classic films (a lot of fans use that rational for apperent discontinuities). I know I am the minority here, but I don't see it that way. For me, the prequels only enhanced the drama of the classic trilogy. Darth Vader is even more dispicable to me in light of how evil he was in RotS. Being someone that kills children, it is more dramatic when he is attempting to kill his own children. All the parallells between Anakin and Luke make Luke's choice of the light side more dramatic. And this is coming from a huge SW fanatic who has seen the classic trilogy well over 100 times and knows very well how it all ends.
But my wife, who had never seen any Star Wars before she met me, watched the movies with me in chronological order, and she was on the edge of her seat during the classic trilogy. As of Anakin's choice to join the Dark Side in RotS, she totally despised him for his betrayal of the Jedi and causing the injuries that kill his wife throughout the classic trilogy. It wasn't just Vader, it was Leia's own evil father that intimidated her and held her as she watched her planet explode (and presumably her adoptive father "Jimmy Smits" die). It wasn't just Vader chasing Luke on the trench run, killing Luke's best friend and all the other Rebel pilots, it was his evil kid-killer father chasing him. By the time we got to RotJ, my wife just assumed Luke would somehow find a way to kill the Sith Lords. Noticing the parallels with Anakin and Luke in Luke's final confrontation with the Sith, she realized that in his rage, Luke was starting to go down the path of his father and then was worried about her prediction that Luke would kill Vader because she of course didn't want Luke to make the same choise her father had. When he didn't, my wife was relieved, but then the drama was heightened to a new high and she yelled out "Noo!" when Luke tossed his saber aside. She knew the Sith lightning was coming and Luke wouldn't be able to defend himself with his saber as the prequel Jedi had. At that point she totally forgot her preconceptions while Palpatine was electrocuting Luke. She was totally suprised that Anakin finally chose good, and she was very satisfied by the unexpected ending. That evil b@st@rd* finally did the right thing! Watching the prequels first seemed to make the classic movies more dramatic for her than they would have been had she watched them in order of release like all of us did. And overall she still likes the classic trilogy more, just like a lot of you who didn't see the prequels first.
And since Obi-Wan's "Sith absolutes" statement was in direct reply to Anakin paraphrasing an absolute of George W. Bush, it can also be said that Lucas is comparing Bush to the Sith.
| Whill wrote: | | "Evil is a point of view, Anakin" said the evil main villain of the saga. |
| crmcneill wrote: | | And what he said was true. From a certain point of view. Part of Palpatine's genius was using the truth to prove an evil point. "Even the devil quotes scripture for his own ends." |
I wholeheartedly disagree that a "truth" demonstrated by Star Wars is that evil is subjective. Star Wars is clearly about good vs. evil, not only demonstrated by good guys fighting bad guys but also by Anakin's internal struggle. Good or evil is really defined by the choices you make. And it is never too late to choose good again, even after 20+ years of chosing evil.
Besides the dramatic irony, Palpatine obviously said that as part of his seduction of Anakin to the Dark Side. Anakin was obviously struggling with some internal moral conflicts in multiple ways throughout RotS, and Palpatine was obviously trying to turn things around so that Anakin would beleive the Jedi were evil instead of the Sith. Lucas was also making a distinct point that evil people in general don't consider themselves evil. That doesn't mean they aren't evil, just that they don't think that they are evil. Palpatine knew he would soon reveal to Anakin that he was the Sith Lord, but didn't just want to depend on the tactic that 'I have a power that can save Padme' to get Anakin to join him. He knew he would also have to address Anakin's conscience. He was manipulating Anakin to see the Jedi as evil and therefore that it was good for Sith to rule the galaxy instead, "for a safe and secure society."
However, Palpatine seems so evil in the saga that I feel he actually knows he is evil. He's evil incarnate and he likes it! That doesn't mean he is going to tell everyone else that though!
And CR, your views the fictional Star Wars universe aside, I have to admit that I am seriously disturbed to read that you seem to sincerely believe what you see as Palpatine's "truth" with respect to real life. It is very dangerous to think that evil is subjective. That is one of the real paths to the dark side. Palpatine and Anakin are fictional characters, but many real life people have used Palpatine and Anakin's "Sith" justifcations for some seriously evil acts.
So my long-winded post did pretty much keep on point about morality which is the part of the subject of this thread.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| 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: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | And CR, your views the fictional Star Wars universe aside, I have to admit that I am seriously disturbed to read that you seem to sincerely believe what you see as Palpatine's "truth" with respect to real life. It is very dangerous to think that evil is subjective. That is one of the real paths to the dark side. Palpatine and Anakin are fictional characters, but many real life people have used Palpatine and Anakin's "Sith" justifcations for some seriously evil acts. |
The point I was intending to make is that, while there are absolutes when it comes to the distinction between good and evil, the dividing line between the two is rarely so clear cut, and is generally left up to the individual's own conscience. While mass murder is clearly evil, a soldier could morally justify killing in combat as not evil, while a pacifist or conscientious objector would be of the opinion that any killing is evil. Each has their own point of view, and neither is truly wrong.
From that point of view, evil (or more specifically, the dividing line between good and evil) is a point of view. Even the Bible makes the point of leaving some things up to the interpretation of the individual if they are not specifically covered by the law. So, from that point of view, Palpatine was telling the truth, but a truth twisted and phrased to support his own evil point of view. Which was a part of his genius.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
