A whole slew of them...

[entropy]

That's a lot of specific situations, but I'm going to throw some general thoughts out in response. Perhaps when I have more time I'll come back and answer each situation.

1. I give DSPs per action, not per death. If you throw one grenade into a group of 5 non-hostile and unarmed people, it's 1 DSP, not 5, even if they all die. (but see #2)

2. I have never given out more than 1 DSP for an action, but I would give 2 if it were particularly heinous (hacking up a tribe of sand people after your mother died, or blowing up alderaan for example). I would never give more than 2.

3. Calling upon the dark side, or using a dark force power is handled seperately from the action taken. It would give 1 or more DSPs on its own, and the action may give 1 more (or possibly two).

4. When not using the force, I don't care what the jedi's state of mind is. If he's in a firefight with some stormtroopers and his friend goes down so he gets mad and shoots the stormtrooper who just shot his friend, no DSP. Jedi get angry, it's not a good thing to do, but it's going to happen. If you gave a DSP every time a jedi acted in anger there would be no jedi, only sith.

5. When a jedi (or any force sensitive) uses a force point, his state of mind is of primary importance. If Anakin is mad that Sebulba is winning the podrace and uses a force point to pass him, that's a DSP. Nothing bad happened, but he used the force in anger. Conversely if a jedi a nd friends are pinned down, and the jedi jumps in front of the group and spends a force point to parry four imperial's shots back at them, killing them all, no DSP. In fact, that action is likely to be selfless and heroic (jedi left cover to protect his friends), and he would gain an extra force point back at the end of the adventure.

6. I don't give DSPs for killing animals unless there are unusual circumstances. Jedi should be allowed to hunt for sport if they want to, it's not evil. (This may be because I'm from Wisconsin.)

7. I *always* warn a player and give him a chance to take back an action before giving a dark side point. You do not accidentally succumb to the dark side, it must be knowingly and willfully.

8. I would never give a DSP for an indirect action, other than a command. Trust is not even a factor. If the bounty hunter says "Surrender or I kill the hostage," and you don't surrender so he kills the hostage, the bounty hunter would be the one to get a DSP, not you. If, however, you order an underling to kill a hostage and he does, you're both in danger of DSPs.

9. I wouldn't give a DSP to a non-force sensitive for taking a head shot at anyone armed, even if they were unaware of him or fleeing. Once you've chosen to take up a weapon, you have forfeited your innocence (Kind of a "Live by the sword, Die by the sword" view).

Wow.. that turned out to be a lot longer than I thought it would. I hope it gives some insight.

[Sabre]

Endwyn, I agree that there are sometimes ways to manipulate the situation, but not always. The point of the Leia/Tarkin thing was, the Empire will find ways to cause damage to people not directly involved in the conflict between the character and the empire when the character tries to manipulate them. They would have blown up Alderaan if Leia had said nothing. They would have blown up Alderaan if Leia had told the truth. By allowing herself to be captured, Leia gave them the excuse they were looking for to blow up Alderaan. If she hadn't been captured it's possible that the Death Star would have been destroyed before the planet was. I know it's possible that it would have gone the same way, but without the need to pressure Leia, it could have waited.

Lando's deal (and Leai's for that matter) shows that you can't trust the Empire (even if you're playing them for time).

In the case of Anakin and Padme, Anakin had a reason to believe he could still save Padme, which makes it different from the case in question. Granted, it was not a very GOOD reason, but Anakin's character is reckless, so it's to be expected that he'd act on it all the same.

The Empire I'm painting would have tortured them before killing them. But like you said, before it got to that point the battle turned.

I'd agree that any GM I'd like to play with would give the players some chance to escape, however, some GMs would likely view failure to win a battle as failure to win the game and punish the players by killing off the characters.

garhkal:

I think we're closer in viewpoint than first glance may reveal. When you say "Unless there is a compelling reason to disobey them..." you're creating an exception to always following the law. So the answer is no, you don't condone ALWAYS following the law (when there's a compelling reason not to). This applies to Imperial law, Republic law, or anyone's law. The Jedi's crime wasn't mentioned in the post, so in that ruling I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and considering that he had a good reason to disobey whatever law it was he broke. In that light, it would be odd for him to say something like 'Oh, right, I guess I did kill those stormtroopers. Take me away and punish me!' unless he was being sarcastic, which is unbecoming of a Jedi.

Basing the empire on Thrawn and Pelaeon is worse than basing the empire on Vader and Tarkin. Thrawn was exceptional in every regard. He's an alien in a high command position in the empire. He has a psychotic obsession with the artfulness of things, but manages to pull off being a tactical genius all the same. Pelaeon is also not typical in that he served with Vader as an officer and didn't get force choked. Tarkin more than Vader, Thrawn, or Pelaeon is a very typical Imperial officer based on what we see in the movies (especially that boardroom scene on the death star).

[Endwyn]

Oh, what's the module? PM me so we don't hijack the thread........more that me already did.
_________________
Luke, I am your father.
That's impossible!
And Leia is your sister!
That's improbable?
And the Empire will be destroyed by..EWOKS!
That's...highly unlikely.
The Force? Bacteria called midichlorians.
If you don’t take this seriously I'm out.

[blackjack]

on the e-web hay it was not just going to be the jedi he was going to shove the trooper of it so i could get on it and go to town or did this hapen more than once , and i was a non jedi and a non force sen. and there were more than just us to think about ,i mean there were all the people on the planet

oh and on the whole part on blowing the ship up u should also tell them that the ship was dead in space they had shoot it earler whith ion guns

but that was just how i saw some of that
_________________
as long as no one says they have a bad "feeling" about this we will all be fine
(in the back ground you here i have a bad feeling about this ,on the ships com. )

[Endwyn]

I'm not saying that Leia's deal was a good one, or that Lando's was either. I think they both put themselves in bad situations. I was only using them to show that you can get what you want from the empire so long as you dangle what they want. Of course it all has to be within reason. The empire's not likely to a keep a prisinor alive on the hopes that they know pointless info, or release 8 rebels for something not worth more.

My point is just that from a cinematic perspective running away and leaving dying comrades is beyond unheroic when you don't try to do something that will / can save them. Movies really take the "no man left behind" spin, and when men do get left behind they usually become villians. There are of course situational modifiers to this, some of which I already addressed.

As for Leia, she was busted with her hand in the cookie jar, she jumped to hyperspace with the plans and the empire persued her. When she got to Tatooine she had three choices, firefight it to the death, run and make another jump, or surrender. She choose a fire-fight, and then the ship was overtaken and boarded. I don't think I've ever seen it explianed (beyond Help us Obi-wan Kenobi, your our only hope.), but evidently Obi-wan was considered intigral to the rebelion's successful destruction of the Death Star. She didn't run from Obi-wan and hang him out (the empire was going to wonder why she picked Tatooine) and the empire would have done enough damage to Luke and Ben's chances of survival if caught unaware of the situation. Ben obviously had better odds.

For me, I don't believe you can ever call a PC hanging any other PC(s) out to dry for their own @$$ anything but unheroic. Now, if the PC's just surrender, they might have been lied to by the Imperials. But it's not a certain. My point is the PC's have enough power to make it possible to save their friends. Surrender and tell the imperials - If any of my friends die, I'll never tell you where X is in time for you to stop Y from happening.

You are correct, surrender itself can't guarentee the empire will keep their word. My point has always been that the PC's shouldn't just leave their friends for dead and that they have to create a situation where they have enough influence to get the empire to do what they want. Once the rebels tells the empire where X is, they're all as good as dead.....once the empire has checked it out.

Lando was in a deal that the second he agreed, the empire had what they wanted, and as such no longer needed him. So his was a bad deal from the begining...but sometimes plot points put you in those positions. My opinion, you can disagree.
_________________
Luke, I am your father.
That's impossible!
And Leia is your sister!
That's improbable?
And the Empire will be destroyed by..EWOKS!
That's...highly unlikely.
The Force? Bacteria called midichlorians.
If you don’t take this seriously I'm out.

[Sabre]

I see your point, but I hope you see that since they can't tell either way what's going to happen in a deal with the Imps whether they choose to flee or surrender, so neither option should give them a DSP.

[Grimace]

Okay, here are some more of my opinion. Not all of the rest, but some.

The wookie slave situation: 1 DSP for essentially the blatant murder of the Imperial.

Shooting retreating Imps: normally I wouldn't issue a DSP, but since the person declared the use of the Force to achieve the rolls, then I would give 1 DSP to him for using the Force for attack.

Robbery bit: 1 DSP to the Scoundrel only, for initiating the brutal act of death. I also wouldn't generally allow a droid to do such a thing...part of droid programming you know. The rest of the group wouldn't get a DSP, unless they were all Jedi.

Disarming situation: I'm not sure I exactly understand who was knocked down. If the opponent was knocked down, and then the Jedi got up and lightsabered the guy in the back, then I would give 1 DSP depending on the situation. The Jedi could have demanded surrender rather than killing the guy, but by the same token, if the Jedi had already demanded the guy to surrender, and the guy didn't, and kep fighting, only to fall victim to the lightsaber in the back, I wouldn't give a DSP, as they opponent had already given up the opportunity to live.

That's all for now.

[Endwyn]

[Grimace]

Heck, I might as well finish this up. So here goes:

Droid destruction: No DSP for normal destruction. 1 DSP if in rage or just doing it to spite someone.


Unconcious body shield: No DSP for master.

Stun Batons: If the Jedi chops down retreating people, 1 DSP. If the Jedi pulls out Lightsaber and is forced to cut down people using stun batons, no DSP. Stun or not, it is a viable threat to his survival and the survival of the team. He wouldn't know what would happen if they both fell unconcious, so hostile action is acceptable.

E-web finale: If the situation occured, I would give out probably 2 or 3 DSPs. One for using the Force for agression, one for calling on the Dark Side, and perhaps one (I'm torn on this) for shooting the Imps without giving option of surrendering. Chances are the Imps wouldn't surrender, and the stormtroopers would simply turn and shoot, but he should still offer. Though, if he's calling on the Dark Side, surrender is not in the forefront of his mind. Honestly though, shooting the Imperials when they're calling for your surrender is NOT an evil thing to do. How you do it is what determines the extent of evil and therefore the amount of DSPs earned. I certainly wouldn't give out more than 3 DSPs for the whole situation though.

Ta-da! Done.
My 6 credits are chipped in.

[Sabre]

With all the uncertainty about the consequences of surrender--including the fact that it could easily NOT save the lives of the wounded and result in the loss of more lives--it just doesn't make sense that the force sensitive should be required to save the lives of people who knew the risks of what they were doing, yet chose to do it anyway. Assuming the Jedi has transfer force is information beyond what was given already, but brings up another point: The Jedi's friends might be beyond the point where they can be saved already. In the empire, even TIE pilots who require a lot of training and natural talent are disposable. The Empire might not have the equipment or skilled personnell to treat mortally wounded people.

If being heroic is all that matters here, surrender just won't cut it any better than retreat (maybe in France). All that the Jedi can do is go out in a blaze of glory. That's nice in its own way, but doesn't really accomplish much in the scope of the game, and the other characters still die. To say that the Empire can be manipulated so easily downplays their intelligence or at the very least their cruelty. To say that they'll keep their word even so far as to heal the wounded (why bother when they have live ones?) overestimates their honor, as evidenced by the two previous examples. Neither Leia nor Lando got what they wanted from the empire in the slightest. If Leia had been slightly less resistant to the mind probe (the Empire doesn't necessarily wait for its victims to offer information voluntarily, another flaw in bargaining) the Empire could have been in a position to do a great deal more damage. In addition to not getting what she wanted, Leia got to watch Alderaan blow up. Manipulation didn't work in the slightest.

I also see this situation as similar to the fall of Anakin. Anakin is so afraid of Padme dying that he ends up falling to the dark side trying to prevent it. Yoda tells him not to fear loss. The Jedi code tells Jedi 'there is no death, there is the Force' to reinforce this very point. These things apply to this situation very well. The Jedi in this case should be more concerned with acting hastily and making a bad situation worse than he should be with the lives of people who willingly fought, willingly risked their lives, and ended up paying for it, because there's more at stake and in the end he might jeapordize everything they fought for in the first place.

[Soniv]

And to give another example from the OT about leaving friends to suffer:

[Endwyn]

The empire can be easily manipulated. Everyone has an achillies heel, the empire wears their's like a badge of honor - power. They crave it, seek it, and take it from others. It is their source of control and they fight for it with every last breath. Their internal structures are filled with self-serving people just looking for a way up the ladder. Now while there are also good people who simply work for the government in charge, the key players are usually those who worked the system to get where they are. Once you know someone's achilies heel, they are easiy manipulated. (It's like a game of chess I once played with this guy. I made a move to take his knight and he instantly grabbed his queen and moved it. I then looked for a way to move that would put both his queen and another important piece in jeapordy. He grabbed the queen and moved it without thinking. For the rest of the game that was my only move - one that could take either the queen or something else. By the end of the game I had a lot of pieces and he had the queen and the king. It wasn't hard to exploit his weakness once I found it. He considered the queen to be more important than any other piece.)

As for Leia and Lando - I keep saying they didn't follow my strategy because they had already given the empire the power. The empire didn't blow Alderaan up until AFTER Leia told them where the base was, and the empire didn't change the deal until AFTER Lando had already delivered his end of the bargain. But they did do perdictable things until they got what they wanted. That's my point.

As for Yoda and the "there is death" stuff, if you take it that way; which you could you are going to lead yourself down a dark path. If death is not important, then why protect the helpless and innocent - the faster the empire squashes them the faster they return to the force..or whatever else you want at the end of that thought. Both lessons are for the jedi - for the jedi to understand that death is part of the order of life and that when they are confronted with it they need to maintain the tranquility inside themselves and not act on emotion. That sometimes death is part of the greater scheme. If you take those things to imply that your off the hook of saving your friends from dying, why help anyone? Why not go around killing people, if there is no death, just the force - send them back to it all the faster.

A jedi stands for something greater than himself, a jedi stands for ideals, and is an agent of the will of the force. If the force intends on the jedi running, IT will provide those signs (through the GM providing clues), but if not then the Jedi needs to act to save his comrades. This doesn't mean surrender is the only option, just one of many. And the empire will revive and maintain the health of three lowly rebels if it means that the Jedi is going to tell them where the rebel base is, or where another jedi is, or something of value. That Jedi has to act before he tells them anything, otherwise - yes the empire will no longer be trustable. It is at it's very essence about timing and manipulation.

Vader could have killed Luke on cloud city, but he wanted to turn him. So he let Luke live. Luke refused to turn so Vader wasn't likely to let him leave (in what condition we'll never know - dead, prisoner, torso with a head?) Luke jumped, he made his move before Vader got what he wanted. In front of the emperor (after surrender) he touched the dark side and came back. He wouldn't give Palp what he wanted (which was to turn Luke and replace Vader) so the Palp turned on him and moved in for the kill. The empire only kills specific people when you have nothing they want, will never give it to them, or you already have given them what they want and they no longer need you.

Surrender for a greater good/cause than yourself is never unheroic. A cop that exchanges themselves for 8 hostages, they surrendered to allow the release of others - unheroic? You have historical leaders who have surrendered to prevent the death of innocent towns or mass populations, they aren't looked upon as unheroic....their now called Martyrs. Running away in a battle when your friends are bleeding out but not dead, that's unheroic.

And regardless of how poorly staffed an imperial facility may be, there is almost alway a medic or a medical droid. The empire enjoys "interogation" too much....and they usually need medical assistance prolonging the lifespans of prisoners during those interogations.....the stubborn ones take a while to crack. Even if their not that blessed to have a medic, a medpac and someone who knows how to use one is more than sufficent to stop a mortally wounded character from dying.
_________________
Luke, I am your father.
That's impossible!
And Leia is your sister!
That's improbable?
And the Empire will be destroyed by..EWOKS!
That's...highly unlikely.
The Force? Bacteria called midichlorians.
If you don’t take this seriously I'm out.

[Endwyn]

As for the Yoda quote, there is a big difference between the two situations. I assume Yoda could actually see good enough to know what was going on. They were bait......bait. You don't kill the bait, or it isn't bait. It was unlikely the empire would have killed them unless it became clear Luke wasn't coming for them.

Yoda didn't want Luke rushing off to save his friends all on impulse and emotion. He knew that Luke wasn't ready to face Vader and that it could mean the end of the Jedi, the possibility that the Sith would never be unseated. Despite all that though, you actually support my point. It is uncinematic, unheroic to not go and save your friends, despite the consequences that could happen to you. Luke was in a unique situation, as is Yoda's advice specific to Luke's training and situation. Would you not give Luke a DSP for leaving Leia, Han and Chewie lying on the ground bleeding while he ran away to save his own tail instead of step up and DO SOMETHING to help his friends? I'm not a big proponent for surrender - I hate the idea of doing it. But I know that it is an option that the PC's can use to save their friends.
_________________
Luke, I am your father.
That's impossible!
And Leia is your sister!
That's improbable?
And the Empire will be destroyed by..EWOKS!
That's...highly unlikely.
The Force? Bacteria called midichlorians.
If you don’t take this seriously I'm out.

[Soniv]

But what if all the Empire wants is the Jedi himself? At that point, once the Jedi surrenders, Empire has what they want, and the others are left to die. The entire reason the Lando trap was sprung in the first place was to get Luke to come rescue Han and Leia. Were it not for Lando's eventual rejection of the deal, Han and Leia would be captured by the Empire, Luke would be dead, and the Rebellion would be crushed.

There are times when refusing to surrender is heroic, and while a Jedi is many things, he is not all-knowing. And, looking at it, Lando fled. He left Cloud City in the hands of the Empire. If he were FS, would you give him a DSP for that? Or would you rather the entire Rebellion die due to Lando's complacence?

My point is simply that sometimes people have to be fled from, or else all will be lost. It's up to the GM to determine those times. Personally, I don't like tricking the players into moral dilemmas. It just seems dirty to me. I woule try to make sure there was always a "good" way out, and try to nudge the players into finding it.

Choosing the lesser evil may make for good philosophical debate, but it lacks the feel of the OT, in my taste. There was Evil, and there was Good. The choice lay in which path the character would take, and why.

[garhkal]