As a Nemesis, asassin droids are an example of something more susceptible to Strain damage than Wound damage.

But as a GM you can say that stun does not affect Droids. There is nothing in the rules that explicitly state stun affects Droid. Now the Ion guns are stun guns for Droids, so the players could carry Ion guns as well as their stun guns. This would hinder them some what.

But Droids are imune to stun damage, you need an ionization blaster to "stun" them...

I just looked over the rules and no where does it say that droids are unaffected by normal stun damage... except on the entry for ionization blaster where it says that i only affects droids. But you could extrapolate that the same applies to normal stun damage not doing anything to droids... That's the way we always worked stun in previous games (WEG) for more the 10 years.

Am I wrong ?

I do not disagree with you. I believe that the people who support the thought that stun affects Droids think it because it does not explicitly state that it does not affect Droids.

I believe the fact that they have Ion guns points to the fact that regular stun does not affect Droids. As a GM though, they can rule it how they like.

I really think this is overblown. If their players like going around and stunning all their enemies, they should just tailor the encounters for that form of attack. Throw in more enemies while setting the terrain so that all the enemies can't attack at once. This can be done with re-enforcements showing up over time. There are many different ways to set up encounters. They do not all need to be in one room with all the enemies grouped on the opposite side.

The game doesn't state that turbolasers hurt droids either, but they do.

Droids have no more exceptions to the rules than what are stated in the Droid trait. Immunity to Stun Setting (or simply Stun) is not one of them.

The game doesn't state that turbolasers hurt droids either, but they do.

have no more exceptions to the rules than what are stated in the Droid trait. Immunity to Stun Setting (or simply Stun) is not one of them.

I have no doubt that you're correct.

It feels wrong though. I guess if stun attacks looked like an amped up tazer I'd buy it affecting droids - but instead it's some weird blue circles. If we assume a droid's stun threshold represents its current charge, it seems odd that it'd be affected by something designed to knock out a biological creature.

The fix to my niggle may be, "Hey, it's just a game, y'know?", but it's nice to avoid even slight knocks to the suspension of disbelief.

The game doesn't state that turbolasers hurt droids either, but they do.

have no more exceptions to the rules than what are stated in the Droid trait. Immunity to Stun Setting (or simply Stun) is not one of them.

I have no doubt that you're correct.

It feels wrong though. I guess if stun attacks looked like an amped up tazer I'd buy it affecting droids - but instead it's some weird blue circles. If we assume a droid's stun threshold represents its current charge, it seems odd that it'd be affected by something designed to knock out a biological creature.

The fix to my niggle may be, "Hey, it's just a game, y'know?", but it's nice to avoid even slight knocks to the suspension of disbelief.

Droids immune to stun but vulnerable to ion is pretty common in the past incarnations of SW games. You can just pretend that using stun settings or grenades includes ion effects as well.

I'm probably going to make them immune to stun because I'm also going to allow them to be vulnerable to remote slicing (reboots and system checks) which has the effect of stunning them.

dp

HDaze is correct, all PCs races are considered the same mechanically and affected by the same RAW equally unless otherwise noted.

But a quick back to the why not use stun question. I'm not going to make an argument based on whether or not it's mechanically better or not as others have already, but bring up the moral argument again of executing helpless opponents. Killing an opponent while in battle is accepted as morally okay (relatively) but killing a helpless opponent when the battle is won is considered murder, and murder is bad. You can argue that other races and other cultures are different and the Fringe may be a lawless frontier but within the Star Wars milieu which is supposed to be the iconic Good vs. Evil story all those races that do kill helpless opponents are solidly on the Evil side. EotE may be in the Grey area with PCs playing basically Good characters in a Bad world (Han Solo being the best example) with killing opponents being nearly unavoidable, murder is still always a choice. Han didn't murder Guido, he killed him because it was a kill or be killed situation. There will always be exceptional moments where a PC is going to feel they have to kill a helpless opponent even when they are no longer an immediate threat, but in Star Wars this should be the exception not the rule.

So if your Player's are stunning the cr*p out of everyone then calmly slitting throats or putting a blaster bolt in their heads they are no longer potential heroes in the fight for Good over Evil, they are the evil .

So if your Player's are stunning the cr*p out of everyone then calmly slitting throats or putting a blaster bolt in their heads they are no longer potential heroes in the fight for Good over Evil, they are the evil .

Is that not okay? If they are force users and leaning towards the dark side (by using the dark pips most/all of the time), wouldn't it make sense for them to be evil? Even if they "shoot" them to/past zero wounds, I thought it was up to the GM if they were just dead or critically injured and would possibly survive and recover?

So if your Player's are stunning the cr*p out of everyone then calmly slitting throats or putting a blaster bolt in their heads they are no longer potential heroes in the fight for Good over Evil, they are the evil .

Is that not okay? If they are force users and leaning towards the dark side (by using the dark pips most/all of the time), wouldn't it make sense for them to be evil? Even if they "shoot" them to/past zero wounds, I thought it was up to the GM if they were just dead or critically injured and would possibly survive and recover?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking.

So if your Player's are stunning the cr*p out of everyone then calmly slitting throats or putting a blaster bolt in their heads they are no longer potential heroes in the fight for Good over Evil, they are the evil .

Is that not okay? If they are force users and leaning towards the dark side (by using the dark pips most/all of the time), wouldn't it make sense for them to be evil? Even if they "shoot" them to/past zero wounds, I thought it was up to the GM if they were just dead or critically injured and would possibly survive and recover?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking.

He's confused about how adversaries are removed from play and how that relates to your argument.

He's forgetting that you're saying the players resolve combat by stunning, then after combat, just shooting anyone they don't need to keep alive until they stop being alive.

So the whole "taken out" part where its up to the GM to arbitrate the exact meaning of "taken out" (except in the case of uber-critted Nemeses) isn't really involved here.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking.

I am asking two things:

1. Is there a rule stating that your PC's have to be good and not evil? For example, if you have a force-user who is constantly using dark side pips that would generally mean that they are evil.

2. How would the players know that they are "dead?" I was under the impression that the GM could state that they appeared "dead," but I would think that in the Star Wars world they could bring back people from apparent death (like Anakin Skywalker). I am not saying that you should do this with all of the slaughtered NPCs, just enough so that someone could "let others know about the PC group."

Is that better?

Thanks for clarifying.

As to your first question I'm not saying PCs can't be evil only that if you're murdering helpless opponents you are evil, especially in the context of the Star Wars I'm familiar with. Regardless if you are acting evil there should be consequences and those consequences should deter players from the tactic of stunning and slitting.

As to the second it's not really relevant to my point. It's a good question though and I would gather that if it was important to the story the PCs should check the bodies. If any are still alive they can figure out what to do with them at that point. In practice though I don't think it's particularly important most of the time as once the encounter is over the party generally moves on. If the GM requires a survivor or witness for some purpose later then it's going to happen one way or another anyway.

Han didn't murder Guido, he killed him because it was a kill or be killed situation.

I figured he did it because he couldn't stand watching Jersey Shore.

In all seriousness though, Han did murder Greedo because he just as easily could have stunned him an then left the bar. Greedo would be out long enough for Han to get away, so killing him wasn't justified.

Well I'm not sure that Han's weapon had a stun setting, it may have one in the game but it's pretty unlikely that it was considered an option at the time. Besides Han shot him through the table maybe he wasn't sure if the stun would be effective? Regardless if someone has a gun on you and has indicated they were willing to kill you with it it's self defense.

I'm not suggesting we always use modern moral ideas or that individual situations aren't going to be muddy only that the tactic of stunning then exicuting helpless people is morally wrong and somewhat psychotic.

I'm not suggesting we always use modern moral ideas or that individual situations aren't going to be muddy only that the tactic of stunning then exicuting helpless people is morally wrong and somewhat psychotic.

I think you are using modern morals. It was not uncommon in history to execute or enslave captives after a battle. Modern sensibilities may consider it evil, but it wasn't at the time.

I'm not suggesting we always use modern moral ideas or that individual situations aren't going to be muddy only that the tactic of stunning then exicuting helpless people is morally wrong and somewhat psychotic.

I think you are using modern morals. It was not uncommon in history to execute or enslave captives after a battle. Modern sensibilities may consider it evil, but it wasn't at the time.

I'm pretty sure that executing or enslaving captives has always been considered "evil" (I'm using the term losely) - by the side that's being executed or enslaved. Sure, there's plenty of examples of ancient cultures that did this (the Aztecs or Greeks for instance) but the view of especially killing people hasn't changed tremendously (even though the concept of death and even people or humans have changed quite a bit).

Han didn't murder Guido, he killed him because it was a kill or be killed situation.

Han: "Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?"

Greedo: "You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship."

Han: "Over my dead body."

Greedo: "That's the idea. I've been looking forward to this for a long time,"

Han: "Yeah, I'll bet you have."

I don't know, if he didn't have to kill Greedo. He could have given Jabba his ship to pay off the debt he acknowledged he owed.

Could argue that, for a smuggler who lives entirely off of his ship - and who perhaps sees his ship as an integral way of life - that giving it up to Jabba was equal to a death sentance.

Could argue that, for a smuggler who lives entirely off of his ship - and who perhaps sees his ship as an integral way of life - that giving it up to Jabba was equal to a death sentance.

I hope you're there when they finally catch me.

I'm not suggesting we always use modern moral ideas or that individual situations aren't going to be muddy only that the tactic of stunning then exicuting helpless people is morally wrong and somewhat psychotic.

I think you are using modern morals. It was not uncommon in history to execute or enslave captives after a battle. Modern sensibilities may consider it evil, but it wasn't at the time.

Han didn't murder Guido, he killed him because it was a kill or be killed situation.

Han: "Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?"

Greedo: "You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship."

Han: "Over my dead body."

Greedo: "That's the idea. I've been looking forward to this for a long time,"

Han: "Yeah, I'll bet you have."

I don't know, if he didn't have to kill Greedo. He could have given Jabba his ship to pay off the debt he acknowledged he owed.

Fist of all I already said there will be occasions where the morality of the situation will be somewhat muddy. You're also conveniently ignoring that Greedo is a known bounty hunter that's there to take, dead or alive, Han who has a Death Mark placed on him by Jabba, a mob Boss who kills people for pleasure, and had a gun pointed at him. And no I'm not going to accept either one has a stun setting that some post-hoc BS. Regardless Han didn't stun a room full of people then calmly slit their throats because it was mechanically more efficient.

In any case I've lost interest in arguing morality here, if you want to play your Star Wars where the protagonists are psychotic Murder Hobos have at it.

Han: "Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?"

Greedo: "You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship."

Han: "Over my dead body."

Greedo: "That's the idea. I've been looking forward to this for a long time,"

Han: "Yeah, I'll bet you have."

I don't know, if he didn't have to kill Greedo. He could have given Jabba his ship to pay off the debt he acknowledged he owed.

First of all I already said there will be occasions where the morality of the situation will be somewhat muddy. You're also conveniently ignoring that Greedo is a known bounty hunter that's there to take, dead or alive, Han who has a Death Mark placed on him by Jabba, a mob Boss who kills people for pleasure, and had a gun pointed at him. And no I'm not going to accept either one has a stun setting that some post-hoc BS. Regardless Han didn't stun a room full of people then calmly slit their throats because it was mechanically more efficient.

In any case I've lost interest in arguing morality here, if you want to play your Star Wars where the protagonists are psychotic Murder Hobos have at it.

Not the point I was trying to make, FuriousGreg (I'm sorry if that was unclear, or could be inferred as a dig).

I wasn't trying to white-wash anything - which is why I included the line about Greedo "looking forward to this" - but whatever his rep, Greedo was not there to kill Han. Sure, he hoped Han would give him an excuse to kill, but that wasn't his goal - he was there to bring him back to Jabba. Han had other options, but didn't like them so killed the guy because that was easier or better, in his mind. Han didn't get the death mark until after New Hope (because he blew off his debt to join the Resisty, full-time).

HappyDaze 's comment that he could have used the Stun setting is a valid one, but one that stems from a poor choice RPG desi g ners have made in every (?) version - that of giving heavy blasters a Stun setting. Regardless of RP choices, it's nice when gear has something about it that sets it apart from the other choices. As it is, if I want discretion, I buy a holdout blaster. If I want something for a stand-up fight, I go heavy. Anything in between has no niche to fill.

And I've no interest in playing a Murder Hobo (well, not after Deadeye Dug, anyway).

Could argue that, for a smuggler who lives entirely off of his ship - and who perhaps sees his ship as an integral way of life - that giving it up to Jabba was equal to a death sentance.

Hardly unexpected when he chose to work for a crime boss who regularly has people murdered and deals in narcotics and slaves. Han did not start off as a good guy, which was the point. Leia seduced him to fall to the light side.