I mean, the moment killing teenagers - even unknowingly or accidentally - isn't a big deal to the characters is the moment you've lost the thread of the game.

Might as well be playing Murderhobo Simulator.

2 hours ago, Seguleh said:

@darzil: right. Thats my point. You can justify a lot of things, the use of chemical weapons, to nuke a city, dronestrikes. But in a system that is about moral conflict it should lead to exacly that.

@EliasWindrider i see ur point. But i dont think it should be as easy as u say. Not in this system. And some of the examples u brought r making justification to easy and sound more like an excuse, for example the destruction of a ammo facility would not save thousands of live, the empire has enough ammo. They are not in a war where they throw everything they have vs their enemy. Maybe some moff somewhere says “what ? the bombs come a week later, well then we do our raid one week later and do more starship controls until then.“

As i said i get ur point, but if morality is an important game mechanic in this game, it shoudnt be done with easy “oh well for the greater good“ otherwise the whole drama and gamemechanic is obsolete

If the pcs were the ones who bombed the munitions factory, I'd be handing out conflict, but that conflict would be the same whether it was stormtroopers or indoctrinated teenagers got blown up as collateral damage. So I'm not saying ditch the morality system.

I'm saying that even if the pcs knew in advance that the munitions factory was going to get bombed they shouldn't be getting conflict for different rebels attacks on a legitimate military target because the responsibility lies elsewhere (they didn't even order the attacks).

3 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

I mean, the moment killing teenagers - even unknowingly or accidentally - isn't a big deal to the characters is the moment you've lost the thread of the game.

Might as well be playing Murderhobo Simulator.

The minute that the enemy is judged by their age (or species, or gender, or religion, or whatever) rather than on their deeds is when the war is lost. SAGroup members do terrible thing, including informing on their own families. They take action in the name of a terrible enemy. That means that they're legitimate targets in my eyes.

BTW, using the pejorative of "murderhobo" doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look self-righteous and judgemental... over how someone else plays out their fantasy wars in space.

6 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

The minute that the enemy is judged by their age (or species, or gender, or religion, or whatever) rather than on their deeds is when the war is lost. SAGroup members do terrible thing, including informing on their own families. They take action in the name of a terrible enemy. That means that they're legitimate targets in my eyes.

BTW, using the pejorative of "murderhobo" doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look self-righteous and judgemental... over how someone else plays out their fantasy wars in space.

But we know that the war was won even without the heroes killing kids. We know for a fact that you're wrong.

You calling me judgmental is hilarious. What was that recent post of yours? Oh right: "Another idiotic ruling from the devs". not at all judgmental over how someone plays princesses and cowboys in space...

Also , I don't judge you for wanting to play a murderhobo. I play those too. What I'm saying is that Star Wars is the wrong game to gloss over an act like that, because under the rules of that story it would be a big deal.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

But we know that the war was won even without the heroes killing kids. We know for a fact that you're wrong.

You calling me judgmental is hilarious. What was that recent post of yours? Oh right: "Another idiotic ruling from the devs". not at all judgmental over how someone plays princesses and cowboys in space...

You don't know those "facts" at all. There very well may have been SAGroup members on the Death Star when it was destroyed.

Rebels killing Imperials without mercy is a dark take on Star Wars (and is shown in Saw's Partisans), but it's not murderhobo behavior. If you're going to use the term, then get it right. The murderhobo kills anyone for whatever reason (the murder part) and never makes in-game attachments (the hobo part).

Saw's rebels are minor villains.

And there is nothing on screen to even suggest the presence of minors on the Death Star. Not every dumb idea needs to.be explicitly dismissed by the movies.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Saw's rebels are minor villains.

And there is nothing on screen to even suggest the presence of minors on the Death Star. Not every dumb idea needs to.be explicitly dismissed by the movies.

Whether Saw's crew were heroes or villains depends entirely on your point of view.

As for your second argument, there's nothing on screen to suggest that the Death Star had bathrooms, but I assume that it did. I can also easily see officers on the Death Star being assigned assistants from senior-year SAGroup members. These are obviously not invited to the senior staff meetings that were shown on film, just as those meetings did not occur in the bathrooms.

There's a big difference between bathrooms, which are s human necessity, and a youth corps, which is just a possibility, at best.

There's evidence for one. But not for the other.

The villainous status of the partisans is clear in the movie. I'm not talking about your interpretation but what the movie presents and how it treats them in the story.

Again, the film (I'm assuming you mean Rogue One) only shows them from a limited point of view to show the story the writer/director wants to focus upon. A work dedicated to the Partisans, even the Battlefield novel Inferno Squad, will show them with more depth and nuance. I prefer to believe that more depth and nuance exists in all areas, not merely those where the camera has been set.

Depth and nuance doesn't make them less villainous, and doesn't change how the movie uses them.

They don't work as an example for your argument, not in the way you intend.

If we are going to use the Hitler Youth as our pattern for the SAGroup, then it should be noted that the former trained and used 14-18 year olds in a variety of combat and combat support roles. These were not defenseless kids. They were members of a paramilitary group being employed in direct support of the military, and were thus legitimate military targets. I see SAGroup in the same way.

7 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Depth and nuance doesn't make them less villainous, and doesn't change how the movie uses them.

They don't work as an example for your argument, not in the way you intend.

My only point with Saw's Partisans is that their approach has precedent in the setting and that they were not murderhobos because they were selective in who they killed (although they were quite accepting of collateral damage, they didn't make attacks that wouldn't inflict harm on the Empire), and they made attachments by fighting for a cause.

52 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

My only point with Saw's Partisans is that their approach has precedent in the setting

Yet you wrote " Rebels killing Imperials without mercy is a dark take on Star Wars ", which is quite a bit more than that. I mean, torturing people for fun has precedent in the setting, too. Doesn't mean it's what the movies or the game is about.

Quote

These were not defenseless kids.

Dude. You're arguing that it's okay to kill 14-year-olds because they were indoctrinated and someone thrust a rifle into their hands.

Quote

legitimate military targets

Depending on who you ask, so are wedding guests, and rescue personnel, and family members of the actual targets. This does not make killing them okay.

Look, we are getting way off topic here.

1) The Hilter youth were viable targets if they maintained armed resistance but were otherwise captured whenever possible. You have to remember that the world was different in many ways back then, world war 2 existed in a world that somehow has less of a moral compass then our world now where war was very brutal and imprecise. Entire countries had entire cities carpet bombed, the kind of devastation and collateral that we will likely only ever see in middle easten countries that America intervenes in frequently. It's really for the best to assume the world was as it was then and hope that whatever happens, we don't regress back to those times.

That being said many of them were captured, same with the other POW's on both sides. The war wasn't a simple matter of completely murdering one side, there was natural compromises that exist in between that, even during those dark times. Being in dark times doesn't excuse anyone from random murder, just nothing is ever black and white in a true war when someone is determined to wipe out every last member of a resistance. The PC's being PC's are the heroes that sit right in the middle of this mess and that makes for incredible drama!

2) On that point, the act of committing a rebellion means that a lot of eggs have to be broken. The characters within this universe shouldn't be happy but ultimately the PC's can only do so much. In the end the new republic didn't even win the war, they fought to an advantageous white peace, got a cease fire and basically turned back into the cesspit of greed that existed prior to the war. The war was fought by people with self interest as much as nobility and that what makes a good tragedy, the "war to end all wars between good and evil" didn't actually end anything. It just levelled the playing field for the force awakens era once again because the new republic started pulling out as soon as they achieved their goals.

3) A large driving point behind the new order is the exact problem of the youth, for many the empire was the only truth they ever knew, so having rebels be dirty and "justify their actions" actually ties into the new order formation pretty well. Both sides see each other as evil and sidious would have really, really enjoyed this fractured galaxy if he wasn't dead.

7 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Dude. You're arguing that it's okay to kill 14-year-olds because they were indoctrinated and someone thrust a rifle into their hands.

I'd argue that it's OK to kill anyone on the battlefield in the other side's uniform if they are holding a rifle or other weapon. And the definition of a battlefield is anywhere fighting happens, so if the rebels launch an attack on a legitimate military target, well it just became a battlefield. By the way just because it's ethical doesn't mean it's moral and I'd be handing out a little conflict if the rebel Jedi PCs bombed anything and killed stormtroopers as collateral damage.

But in this case the PCs didn't bomb anything.

Saw's tactics were too extreme for the ivory tower "rebel alliance" (I actually think they disavowed him because he was a public relations nightmare, a little too sloppy/accepting of collateral damage) but he wasn't so extreme as to be a "terrorist" (he wasn't bad enough that the rebel alliance decided they had to use force to put a stop to him)

30 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Saw's tactics were too extreme for the ivory tower "rebel alliance"

I wouldn't call them ivory tower. Just look at what Cassian does at the beginning of Rogue One. They fight and kill both soldiers and civilians, whether its done officially or not.

27 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I wouldn't call them ivory tower. Just look at what Cassian does at the beginning of Rogue One. They fight and kill both soldiers and civilians, whether its done officially or not.

I think you cut off the quote in mid sentence because I already addressed this and wouldn't have been able to abject to my word choice otherwise...

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

Saw's tactics were too extreme for the ivory tower "rebel alliance" (I actually think they disavowed him because he was a public relations nightmare, a little too sloppy/accepting of collateral damage) but he wasn't so extreme as to be a "terrorist" (he wasn't bad enough that the rebel alliance decided they had to use force to put a stop to him)

But ivory tower-ism is about being impractically academic and secluded from the real world. It's very much not caring about (and not even realizing the problem of) public relations.

To be fair the alliance's memo ultimately is "they are the legitimate government, thus they will only do what is acceptable to reclaim what is theres.". Though strictly speaking those very same policys do not apply to non-alliance associated rebels and the special force that Cassian belonged to, who seemed fine killing anyone and everyone provided it furthered the alliances agenda. Given that they were dead set determined on killing the head scientist of the death start and their own informants, I imagined those guys wouldn't bait an eyelid at some of the things that no one of strong moral being would ever touch. Kinda like the special forces in real life, they do a lot of things on foreign soil that morals and red tape would only slow down.

It is important to remember that war brings out the best and worst out of people and unfortunately; there is no 100% correct way in dealing with it, other then dealing with it quickly and rebuilding in it's wake. Just again, just because the alliance deemed it necessarily shouldn't mean the PC's should consider it acceptable. This is the kind of good drama that drives games forward; do the players observe what is happening but don't try and change anything? Or do they take it on themselves to be more proactive?

On 9/23/2017 at 0:19 AM, Stan Fresh said:

But ivory tower-ism is about being impractically academic and secluded from the real world. It's very much not caring about (and not even realizing the problem of) public relations.

I think the alliance is interested in appearing to be ivory tower, morally superior to the empire, above reproach, saw jeopardized that image. If they really were ivory tower the would have taken action to stop him instead of just parting ways... that's the point I was making

So to sum up - we have no consensus on what levels of morality to hand out, if any. Thanks guys - all been a big help.

Upon reflection, I do kind of wish the players had been a bit more nosey (or I had tantalized them with a bigger carrot), I would have like to see how this would have played out. Ah well - the idea goes into the recycle bin for future use at some point down the road.

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 1:07 PM, HappyDaze said:

If we are going to use the Hitler Youth as our pattern for the SAGroup, then it should be noted that the former trained and used 14-18 year olds in a variety of combat and combat support roles. These were not defenseless kids. They were members of a paramilitary group being employed in direct support of the military, and were thus legitimate military targets. I see SAGroup in the same way.

The way you described this as being classified by actions instead of a description of the person really made me think so I appreciate your thoughts on this. I would say that it is not immoral to kill them in the sense of the greater war, but it is tragic. It's important to be able to actually separate morality from sentimentality. It could be said that some of them are young and are very likely to at least modify their thinking, but in the heat of the moment and if you cannot really avoid killing them (because of time, risk, etc.) then I would say it's c'est la guerre.

You swayed me on this one, I was wrong about my initial post in this thread in response to you.

2 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

The way you described this as being classified by actions instead of a description of the person really made me think so I appreciate your thoughts on this. I would say that it is not immoral to kill them in the sense of the greater war, but it is tragic. It's important to be able to actually separate morality from sentimentality. It could be said that some of them are young and are very likely to at least modify their thinking, but in the heat of the moment and if you cannot really avoid killing them (because of time, risk, etc.) then I would say it's c'est la guerre.

You swayed me on this one, I was wrong about my initial post in this thread in response to you.

But...

You can't let someone change your mind on the internet!

Take 10 Conflict!