An ethical issue came up yesterday that caused both a lot of laughs but also freaked me the crap out.

Oskara (BH/Gadgeteer, as I'd rebuilt her) had been doing a lot of work for the crew - multiple modifications to rifles, armour, swords, and our ship. She did this for free because, hey, these people are her friends. But she'd missed a lot of sleep from all the work so when we arrived at this tiny port, she elected to stay on the ship. When asked by those going into town if she needed anything, she asked for a hammock for her work room.

Taking care of other business, the group's Politico set about finding the best quality hammock he could (I know, the more I use the word the goofier this sounds – I’m getting there though). He netted zero Successes, a Triumph and two Threat. The GM frowned and eventually said something like, "You've found one that's significantly different from the others. It's made from smooth, woven hair with thick, sturdy leather ties." The Politico asked about its construction and was told, matter-of-factly, that it was crafted from a Wookiee pelt.

I was stunned by this. We’re operating in a rough area (border of Hutt space), and I get that people treat Wookiees as savages, but I kind of thought only Tradoshans thought of them as animals.

I’m vocal about how shocked I am and we all have a laugh about playing up comic value of the well-intentioned Politico naively returning with such a grotesque "thank you" gift.

All good fun, but then the GM suggested that the only reason we hadn’t tried to sell the Wookiee pelts we found when we “acquired” the Krayt Fang was because they stank. Y’know, rather than the more obvious reason that selling the flayed hide of a sapient creature was just morally wrong. He also said he understood why Oskara would be horrified by the gift (if she finds out what it is) – because both Wookiees and Twi’Leks are enslaved species (that ain’t the reason – it’s just plain wrong).

I’m not sure what this post is for. I guess it’s a roleplaying issue. For the longest time I've been certain that nobody in any system will ever understand a Player’s Character as well as the Player does – that’s not a complaint, it’s just an inescapable fact. But the degree that GMs and other Players can misjudge these things is a surprise.

Anyone else care to surprise me with a story of their own?

Sounds like your GM is in murder hobo mode. I suppose he laughed and cheered at the scene where Anakin butchered the Sandpeople tribe including women and children?

Someone's moral compass needs adjustment, and it's not yours.

I wonder how your GM would react if your group started taking "trophies" from the humans they kill?

I agree, a Wookiee pelt hammock is just plain wrong.

Yeah... Star Wars and moral ambiguity can be fun, but groups that kill Wookiees and take their pelts aren't morally ambiguous, they're straight-up evil. A trophy is one thing. Boba Fett has a Wookiee braid taken from some Wookiees he killed, and yes that's pretty macabre, but I'm willing to bet he didn't find some dead Wookiees and think to himself, "Sheesh, those sure are some stylish pelts they have!"

He's a good GM. We butt heads from time to time, but he builds great stories and actively seeks out and destroys railroad situations. I understand the reason he chose to put something like that in the game - it was an unusual result and we were in a low-morality area of space. The biggest fault here - as far as I'm concerned - was that he put something horrific in play then didn't react to it with the seriousness it deserved.

It is a game, and moral and ethics have become individualised to the extent that anything, more or less, can be justified. And since its a game, it is sometimes interesting (and necessary) to pose moral, ethical and extreme dilemmas on the players.

I ran a BRP game some years ago, in a home-brew fantasy setting. Pretty grim setting it seems. My players had been tracking this, or these, murderers/monsters up into the mountains for a few weeks, it was cold they were far away from their home base. The tracks lead them to this old fort, wherein they find this cult of pseudo-lycanthropes (some are actual lycanthropes, most not). Battle ensues and they finish the bastards. Next they set out exploring the compound. Then the big bad barbarian PC finds their "food storage", he doesn't succeed picking the locks, so he decides to brutally kick the door open. Bam. The door breaks of its hinged and slams to the floor. At the other end of the room he sees a cowering child, obviously in shock, panicked, poorly fed and scared senseless, staring at the door, or something underneath it. Then he notices the blood that is coming out from under the door, and a small hand and foot.

Now the look on my player's face - he had recently become a father. Now, what do you think he did?

It is a game, and moral and ethics have become individualised to the extent that anything, more or less, can be justified. And since its a game, it is sometimes interesting (and necessary) to pose moral, ethical and extreme dilemmas on the players.

I ran a BRP game some years ago, in a home-brew fantasy setting. Pretty grim setting it seems. My players had been tracking this, or these, murderers/monsters up into the mountains for a few weeks, it was cold they were far away from their home base. The tracks lead them to this old fort, wherein they find this cult of pseudo-lycanthropes (some are actual lycanthropes, most not). Battle ensues and they finish the bastards. Next they set out exploring the compound. Then the big bad barbarian PC finds their "food storage", he doesn't succeed picking the locks, so he decides to brutally kick the door open. Bam. The door breaks of its hinged and slams to the floor. At the other end of the room he sees a cowering child, obviously in shock, panicked, poorly fed and scared senseless, staring at the door, or something underneath it. Then he notices the blood that is coming out from under the door, and a small hand and foot.

Now the look on my player's face - he had recently become a father. Now, what do you think he did?

Oh that's good.

I felt bad for a long time after that.

Sounds like it was in-genre... if you're in a dark fantasy campaign, you gotta expect things to shock you. I'm not a parent (perhaps I'd feel differently), but that kind of moral hammer blow would have impressed me (I always get a kick out of a fictional character making me feel genuine emotion though).

That would have been the moment when my character changed. Does the barbarian become consumed by guilt and act in an ever more self-destructive manner? Do they become an ultra-careful, ultra-serious protector? Do they find or rededictate themselves to their religion in order to atone? Very powerful stuff.

Strangely, the thing I'd find hardest to resolve would be the surviving child. What did they do? Kid heard his family get killed, saw his friend or sibling crushed, and is powerless against what is, to them, the aggressors.

EDIT: Missed the "food storage" bit - thought he was part of the werewolf cult.

These types of situations came up constantly in my last Dark Sun game, in which the players responded to the brutal setting by being even more brutal and conniving than usual. It was like Game of Thrones except with more slaves and more violence. Everyone in the party was unaligned, but eventually I graduated a few players to straight up evil.

In Edge of the Empire, my players have a real penchant for taking captives then arguing about what they do with them. These discussions are usually so casual and callous that the game has received the affectionate monicker; "It's Always Sunny on the Lazy Bantha" (their ship).

The worst so far was when they tried to bribe a security captain on Mandalore, only to end up getting caught and chased by the planetary defense force. Captain Hardin was forced to become a temporary crewmember on their run to Dathomir to sell some gundark pelts. Along the way they rolled a failure with both a Triumph AND a Despair on the Astrogation check. I interpreted this as them being forced to stop in an asteroid field, but they came across a scientific outpost researching the very ore the player-owned mine mines... but, unfortunately, said mine was owned by the Empire, so they ended up captured.

Once they got their weapons back and made ready to make an escape, the party Trader turned around and shot Captain Hardin in the face with his disruptor pistol, killing him instantly. Evidently he didn't want any "loose ends" while they were making their escape.

The rest of the players were shocked and were discussing locking him up in the brig until the Trader asked if he could spend a Destiny Point to rewrite the scene so it was more like the part of Pulp Fiction where John Travolta accidentally shoots the guy in the back of the car. ("C'mon Captain Hardin, you HAVE to have an opinion and -- OH #$%& I SHOT HIM!")

Was Captain Hardin a PC or an NPC lent to a player? If the former, I'd have said no way - disrupter guy was being a bit of a jerk. If the latter, that sounds like a fun revision, and paints him as a bit of a clown (and can still lead to complications down the road).

How do GMs here deal with PCs killing each other?

As a player I'd be pretty pissed if a character I'd spent a bunch of time and effort building was bumped off by another player when I hadn't done enough to provoke it. I'd understand it - the universe would be less believeable if for some reason guys with the "PC glow" couldn't kill each other for no good reason - but I'd hope my new character was equally capable as the one I'd lost.

He was an NPC. I NEVER allow player vs. player spats to become violent. Roleplaying is all well and good, but I refuse to let one player ruin another player's fun at the table. We recently kicked out the one player who was causing trouble; I have ZERO patience for that sort of thing... although otherwise I can be a pretty loose, forgiving GM. I want to entertain my friends first and challenge them second. Frustrating them doesn't even make the list.

The Problem Player had really stupid beef with one of the other players in real life, and couldn't keep it away from the table. The sad part was this other player's character went out of his way for the Problem Player's character, even nearly dying to save his life. The Problem Player was a Wookiee Jedi, and yet still ignored this.

Like I said, I don't deal with it. The rule is that everyone treats everyone else with respect at the table, or you can kindly go home. I have 8 players and several more who want to join, so I don't need to put up with any non-gaming related nonsense.

I allow PVP violence so long as it's 1.) not metagame-related, and 2.) a natural progression of their characters. In the case of the first I shut it down immediately and pull the relevant parties aside, but in the case of the second I'll let it play out. Only to a point, though, and fortunately this system makes it exceedingly hard for two PCs to kill each other outright. For instance, I'm expecting it in an upcoming game, since a couple players have expressed interest in being rebel agents and another wants to be an Imperial spy. That should lead to some fireworks.

Of course, if one of my players is a consistent PVP problem, I'll have to do something about it. The game is supposed to be fun above everything else, and anything that violates that contract of fun needs to go.

I always have a mix of new and experienced players, so I just disallow it period. I don't want new players becoming paranoid that they have to act a certain way; they have enough on their plates to begin with. (That said, the Edge of the Empire system is ABSURDLY easy to teach and master.)

With more experienced groups, such as with my former Dark Sun game, ANYTHING goes and everybody needs to wear their big boy pants. Still, I hardly ever have trouble with that sort of thing. I pick my players carefully, and I try to weave common threads between party members to keep them together.

I'm expecting it in an upcoming game, since a couple players have expressed interest in being rebel agents and another wants to be an Imperial spy. That should lead to some fireworks.

Is there much tying their backgrounds? The spy to either of the rebel agents I mean. An odd mix if they don't (why are these guys hanging out?), an exciting one if there is.

Sounds like it was in-genre... if you're in a dark fantasy campaign, you gotta expect things to shock you. I'm not a parent (perhaps I'd feel differently), but that kind of moral hammer blow would have impressed me (I always get a kick out of a fictional character making me feel genuine emotion though).

That would have been the moment when my character changed. Does the barbarian become consumed by guilt and act in an ever more self-destructive manner? Do they become an ultra-careful, ultra-serious protector? Do they find or rededictate themselves to their religion in order to atone? Very powerful stuff.

Strangely, the thing I'd find hardest to resolve would be the surviving child. What did they do? Kid heard his family get killed, saw his friend or sibling crushed, and is powerless against what is, to them, the aggressors.

EDIT: Missed the "food storage" bit - thought he was part of the werewolf cult.

His face became all passive. Then he said "I walk over to the child" ... then he made a flicking motion with his hand, mercy kill by neck breaking. His character did change "somewhat" yes, he was the second son of shaman, so he went even more into that sort of stuff. Pretty cool campaign, that just sort of ended through inaction and laziness shortly after that session.

In my current EoTe campaign the FS exil is a former slave, trained as an assassin, she kills without mercy. So when the others debate, and debate at length on what to do with some witness or captive or whatever, she will just silently walk over and place a blaster bolt in their face. Pretty pragmatic and straight forward. Not necessarily evil, just no-nonsense and slightly cynical. I used some Anzati for the halloween session, was good fun, scared some of them somewhat when one of them walked in on an anzati going for the FS Exile's "soup". Beyond that I try to stay away from the too dark stuff, but sometimes their actions do have consequences that, at least the doctor, feels bad about. No genocide ... yet.

I agree that certain kinds of dark themes are inappropriate for Star Wars most of the time... however that hasn't stopped certain players from doing things like stabbing someone in the stomach and ripping their guts out Robert Rodriguez's "Machete" style.

The Oskara in my group actually tried to hock the Wookiee pelts. She had a fairly cold, pragmatic view toward the issue. There were no Wookiees in the PC group, and since the murder part was already over and done with, she saw it more as stealing Trex's profits than being accessory to an atrocity.

I think all players will fall somewhere along the continuum between applying real-world morality and viewing it all as "just a game." It's just a matter a figuring out everyone's boundaries and being sensitive to them. For me, it's amusing to see a real-life doctor roleplay a cold, profit-hungry bounty hunter as she shrugs off the judgmental stares of her peers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nYbKipNtac#t=11

I'd agree. It is a game after all. Moral and ethical dilemmas are interesting to use in a roleplaying game, and it is fascinating to watch how people change when trying to immerse themselves in a character. I hate to go against my moral principles (like ordering Zaalbar to kill Mission Vao in KOTOR, one of the most difficult decisions I've made in any game... I felt bad for days!), but as a GM I feel I sometimes must, in order to engage my players on some level or another.

Of course, in my experience, most players stay within their realm of conscience, but there are always those that go beyond - one way or another, and that I find to be rewarding, more so than players not leaving their comfort zone.

When it comes to in-group fighting and violence, in my experience - limited as it is - has taught me to include 1 or 2 females in the group. It removes that testosterone tension and the ultimate conclusion of it: Mine is bigger than yours. Of course that still happens, the two players that also frequently play D&D/Pathfinder still do this, but luckily it's saved for breaks and the post-game chatter.

Now if it would come to violence in the group I'd let it happen, as long as it made narrative sense and as was mentioned above, is not because of meta-gaming and out of game reasons. If these two criteria are met, they can have a go at each other - a HARP group I ran bloodied a tavern's bathing facilities over the removal of a ninja-mask... thank god for duct tape of healing, and an Aesir wielding a giant warhammer one handed.

In my group I cannot see it happen, yet. The doc is too much of a coward, and would rather drug her victims than kill them. The scoundrel swashbuckler, well, he's too fond of having a good time and escape IBC debt. The wild card is the rodian gadgeteer and the human assassin. The pilot and thief are also too jovial and happy go lucky, at the moment. If it happens, I'm curious as to who will survive.

Col. Orange, it sounds like your intentions were good!

Col. Orange, it sounds like your intentions were good!

Bingo.

When it comes to in-group fighting and violence, in my experience - limited as it is - has taught me to include 1 or 2 females in the group. It removes that testosterone tension and the ultimate conclusion of it: Mine is bigger than yours. Of course that still happens, the two players that also frequently play D&D/Pathfinder still do this, but luckily it's saved for breaks and the post-game chatter.

Yeah, from what I've seen, having females in the group lessens the posturing - instead the females just quietly pick up the dice and look at the GM with a matter-of-fact declaration of, "Now I'm going to shoot him until he's dead."

Playing a character with different morals than me is part of the fun of roleplaying. I've had some fun times playing characters that make me uncomfortable, people I might not even talk to in RL. I'm not sure it's helped me "see things as the other guy does" but it definitely challenges me to think in a different way.

Part of the Outer Rim's charm is that you run the gamut of morals. Right and wrong are much more concrete at your table than the setting described around it. The key in my mind is to make sure you let the players know that there might be uncomfortable moments and if that's a problem, work it out before play time - goes without saying that people probably don't all feel the same way about the same things.