Being stunned and executed.

[Azai]

So this is a little problem I'm looking into. I'm sure many others have already solved it.

So you can stun someone for 2D rounds if you get 4+ on damage. Then someone can walk up to them and put a bolt right into their head, or saber through their chest. So what is the purpose of not always just having blasters set to stun and then quick clean up?

[Xain Arke]

There is nothing stopping someone doing this at all...but it is not very
Star Wars.

If a character did this in my campaign they would automatically get
a Dark Side Point for each murder, because that is what it would be.

The enemy are already subdued by being stunned, they could easily be
tied up and stuffed into storage lockers, handed over to authorities etc,
there is no need to kill them.

If a Jedi player condones this or stands by while others do it, then he
should get a Dark side Point too and an additional one for each murder
he allows to happen. Because he is allowing evil (in star wars terms) to
occur.

of course, YMMV

Xain

[Whill]

[Azai]

Thanks to both of you for your input. Whill you solved the problem exactly how I want to handle it. It stays in line with the character that doesn't wish to kill, but still doesn't make stun overpowered for those that will straight up execute those they stun. At least in a really easier fashion tactically speaking.

I will take a look at those modifications and see if they interest me. And as bad as this sounds, we don't use darkside points in our campaign. There is a uniqueness on ripple effects but no evil vs good concept. (Though darkside corruption and temptation is a thing but it is house ruled)

[garhkal]

Additionally, you can also restrict stun to being ONLY close range (short) brackets for what ever weapons are being used..
And if PC's still are using it, then there's nothing saying the enemy can't do the same tactic to them!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Naaman]

I tend to take this a step further than Whill does. The way I run it, in order for a stun to render the target unconscious, it must achieve a result of "killed."

Lesser results add 1 "stun" to the target's condition, while a "stunned" result has no effect (other than to make the target angry).

I do it this way in order to simulate the difficulty of live capture. Such an objective has a way of complicating things.

Another option that comes to mind is to allow the target a willpower roll in order to overcome the effects of the stun result. Go on youtube and check out some videos of cops using their tazers to virtually no effect to understand what I'm talking about here.

[Azai]

I see what both are you are saying, and restricting stun to close range could be interesting. I mean we only ever see the blue rings at close range I believe.

Though while the willpower is tempting, I want to kept the idea of 'being' stunned there. Like powerful people still falling pry to stun as with the movies and animated series. Realistic or not. But it was tempting!

[Volar the Healer]

1) It does not appear to be imperial doctrine. They seem to use stun setting only rarely.

2) How long is someone stunned? One round? two? Seems to me an "incapacitated" result would be needed to take an enemy out of the fight, or maybe three stun results?

3) I remember reading somewhere, long ago, stormtroopers are immune to stun. Perhaps others in full armour are also immune?

4) The Jedi have a force power that makes them immune to stun.

5) What goes around comes around. If you feel this tactic is somehow dishonourable (I don't), have the enemy start using it back against the players.

I disagree that stunning then slaying your enemy is dishonourable. I would not award a dark side point, as killing your enemy in war is not an evil act. At least, no more so than blasting a hole through his chest or dropping high explosives on him.
_________________
Know Jesus, Know Peace.
No Jesus, No Peace

[garhkal]

[Whill]

[garhkal]

Not sure where i got the 2d hrs from. Might have been remembering 1e or 2e base...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[D+1]

Bad Form is the biggest reason. Executing stunned opponents is just NOT the Star Wars way of playing things out. If NPC's do that against the PC's then the DM has TOTALLY missed the feel of Star Wars. If PC's are doing it against their opponents they have perfectly valid motivations AS PLAYERS. Stun-then-execute is more effective. But then they are definitely not Good Guys. In roleplaying terms, as noted, it makes for a CONSTANT stream of Dark Side points.

To set for stun, or to use a weapon that ONLY stuns, is a very conscious choice. As a character in the Star Wars universe your reason for that choice is that you WANT live prisoners, or you specifically DO NOT want to kill your opponent. To then execute them when they are helpless is EVIL. Oh they may DESERVE death because only a few moments ago they were doing their best to kill YOU, but you made the very DELIBERATE choice to avoid killing them.

Stun-then-kill is a strictly a mechanical advantage inadvertently granted by the rules and it is Bad Form to abuse it just because you know you can.

The suggestions of moving the effect further down the damage result list and restricting it to short range are probably the simplest means of just solving the problem mechanically. Fighting fire with fire by using the tactic against the PC's is only proof (IMO) that both the GM and the players have lost all grasp of the G, PG, or at most PG-13 feel of the Star Wars universe and - again, IMO - are leaping right to a hard R rating. And there's really nothing wrong with that if everybody is on board with it, but rather misses the point of choosing to play Star Wars instead of some other setting.