Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sockmerchant

Murderous PC's

Recommended Posts

I'll say this again: Star Wars doesn't have surveillance tech as prolific as modern-day RL. They don't readily have CSI labs that go to work on every little thing happening in the Outer Rim (and killing a half dozen nobodies is still a little thing in the SW universe). While CC cameras are certainly around, they are typically obvious and record on-site. Remember that the baseline tech of this setting is reskinned 70s/80s where starships = automobiles and blasters = firearms. Other elements, like lightsabers and bacta better resemble magic. However, this is not the place for ultra-tech miracles pulled out of Star Trek, nor even of modern cutting edge forensics (consider how hard it was to track down the crew of the MF after it was identified as having been resposible for the destruction of the Death Star).

 

Depending on how deep down the EU rabbit hole one wishes to go, I would like to point out some information I have come across.  In several instances in the early Rogues squadron series Whistler (an astromech fitted with enhanced software in order to assist capturing criminals) was called upon to replay video/data he had captured from up to several decades ago. He was originally from CORSEC, and if they would have access to this technology, then Imperial Intelligence probably would as well. Given the nature of and interdependance on droid labor/services I think it would be very reasonable to assume there are recording devices in many places, such as traffic control cameras, orbital facilities, even mesenger droids could capture data.  It would just be a matter of putting all of the pieces together.

 

That's true. They mostly just use holo technology, which doesn't even have color (and its resolution is pretty crap). Their computer technology and our's is completely different. Pretty much everything is black base screen with a few colors (remember the view of the Death Star approaching Yavin?) or holo-projections.

 

 

I believe that is more because the original 3 were filmed in the 70's 80's than because that was a purposeful representation of the tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just remember that PCs in this game are not shining lights in the darkness. When you can have characters that have Specializations like Assassin and Marauder, that should tell you that they are not required to play nice with others. And also, Han shot Greedo in cold blood. He's the iconic character for this game (along with Chewbacca, Boba Fett, and Lando), and he committed murder within his first few minutes on the screen.

Trust me when I say these guys (well, four of them) make Han look like a space angel. eg, tonight they found an office full of admin geeks. Do they hold them hostage and have them transfer money into their accounts? No. They throw in a grenade and close the door, for no other reason than they can. (Well actually they rolled a despair and the door stayed open doing some damage to a few of the PC's... but the intention was there)

 

yeah this is no good (IMHO)

I made it clear at the start of my campaign that the base concept of Star Wars is the "hero's journey" so they can be dark when the campaign starts but they will find redemption (most likely as part of the rebellion). your guys sound like they would be better off playing 'Fiasco' or something. killing civilians for fun is psychotic...not anything Han or Boba would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's true. They mostly just use holo technology, which doesn't even have color (and its resolution is pretty crap). Their computer technology and our's is completely different. Pretty much everything is black base screen with a few colors (remember the view of the Death Star approaching Yavin?) or holo-projections.

 

 

I believe that is more because the original 3 were filmed in the 70's 80's than because that was a purposeful representation of the tech.

 

 

True, but the techie in me would just say that holo-transmission bandwidth, especially for wireless FTL transmissions, just can't handle the load.  You're constantly scanning in 3D and transmitting faster-than-light.  Since we can't do that (yet), we have no idea what kind of limits there are.

 

For the other graphics though (wireframes of Endor, Death Star, and shield) I wish they'd go back and re-render :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's true. They mostly just use holo technology, which doesn't even have color (and its resolution is pretty crap). Their computer technology and our's is completely different. Pretty much everything is black base screen with a few colors (remember the view of the Death Star approaching Yavin?) or holo-projections.

 

 

I believe that is more because the original 3 were filmed in the 70's 80's than because that was a purposeful representation of the tech.

 

That is at least part of it. And the systems we see displaying these very simple images are military systems, which one would expect probably do show the most basic possible information that's still easily understandable. Regardless, it's a stylish look, and having people watch HD camera footage just wouldn't feel Star Wars.

 

But now I'm curious what the security cameras in the detention facility were showing (did we see any monitors for those?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Greedo may have had his blaster on Stun. For that matter, Han certainly could have put his blaster on Stun, so his use of deadly force cannot be claimed as self-defense by modern sensibilities. Also, was Greedo a licensed bounty hunter in pursuit of a legal bounty? If so, his changes the self-defense argument.

 

 

How did Han know if Greedo has a weapon capable of stun? If it was capable, how did Han know it was set to stun? If you are approached in the dark by a man who points a long gun at you, you kill him, then you find out it was a BB gun, you aren't going to be charged with Murder.

 

If we assume Han's weapon had a stun capability (EU and RPG territory), he's under no legal obligation to use less lethal force when presented with probable lethal force. Less lethal options are typically less efficient at stopping an opponent. Modern police carry both tasers and handguns. If someone points a gun at them, they aren't going for their taser at all (or at least shouldn't).

 

Regarding Greedo having an official bounty license. You had to ask the question yourself, so you aren't sure either. Did Greedo show Han an official document or say he had a license for his capture? Nope. Could he have had one? Sure (again slipping into EU territory). With what the scene shows, we only know Greedo was after Han due to Jabba wanting him. If you say it was murder, you are making lots of assumptions that a court wouldn't.

 

Judge: Mr. Solo, you are innocent of all charges, you are free to go.

Han: Thanks Your Honor. *flips him a cred chip*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little different if the cops' guns (no having to decide which weapon to draw) have the ability to fire less-than-lethal rounds (and switching is only as time consuming as deactivating a safety) that are just as effective as the lethal rounds yet they opt instead to use lethal force.

 

As for your last bit, Jabba pracgtically owns the courts (such as they are) on Tattooine, so I doubt they would favor Han.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely hit them up with Obligation. You don't need to baby them with .. are you sure? you will get X, if you do Y. They are acting like murderers, treat them like murderers. Give them 10 Obligation and let them realize that generating so much heat will cook them.

I'd only give it 5 - it's not a defining crime, so less than the nominal starting 10-15 obligation. But I'd put it at 5 for each involved PC... and that 

 

But every bloody time they do it again, it goes up. A couple points each excessive violence, and pretty soon, they can't spend experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Definitely hit them up with Obligation. You don't need to babyt them with .. are you sure? you will get X, if you do Y. They are acting like murderers, treat them like murderers. Give them 10 Obligation and let them realize that generating so much heat will cook them.

I'd only give it 5 - it's not a defining crime, so less than the nominal starting 10-15 obligation. But I'd put it at 5 for each involved PC... and that 

 

But every bloody time they do it again, it goes up. A couple points each excessive violence, and pretty soon, they can't spend experience.

 

It's not always easy to determine when violence becomes excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we assume Han's weapon had a stun capability (EU and RPG territory), he's under no legal obligation to use less lethal force when presented with probable lethal force. Less lethal options are typically less efficient at stopping an opponent. Modern police carry both tasers and handguns. If someone points a gun at them, they aren't going for their taser at all (or at least shouldn't).

 

Depends upon the department. My local department just changed their rules, requiring tasers until lethal force is used. Brandishing doesn't allow them to draw, if the way it was discussed by the PAO was a fair representation. 

 

Greedo may have had his blaster on Stun. For that matter, Han certainly could have put his blaster on Stun, so his use of deadly force cannot be claimed as self-defense by modern sensibilities. Also, was Greedo a licensed bounty hunter in pursuit of a legal bounty? If so, his changes the self-defense argument.

 
Han would likely have known one way or the other. We know Greedo's a bounty hunter; he's attempting to collect the bounty! The question of being licensed or not, we aren't given enough to make the call. 
 
That Han walks off after flipping a few creds to the barkeep would tend to indicate that greedo wasn't licensed, that the barkeep didn't have an issue, and that Greedo wasn't respected. More interesting is that it's one of two murders in a short span by the protagonists - Ben kills another man, one wanted for crimes in at least 5 systems.
 
The implication is that Tatooine has no functioning legal system.
Edited by aramis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little different if the cops' guns (no having to decide which weapon to draw) have the ability to fire less-than-lethal rounds (and switching is only as time consuming as deactivating a safety) that are just as effective as the lethal rounds yet they opt instead to use lethal force.

 

Again, though, never in the movies do we see the use of a stun setting on any weapon other than a storm trooper rifle.  We don't even know if Han had a stun setting.  But even if he did, Greedo was threatening to kill him, not threatening to stun him, so he was meeting a threat of lethal force wiht lethal force.

 

As for your last bit, Jabba pracgtically owns the courts (such as they are) on Tattooine, so I doubt they would favor Han.

Then it's lucky for Han that Jabba didn't particularly care that Greedo was killed.  In the Special Edition version of Star Wars (in which I argue that Han was more culpable for killing Greedo, whose inability to shoot Han from about a yard away proves he really wasn't a threat), Jabba stops Han on the street, asks "Why'd you have to fry poor Greedo" and then pretty much sends Han on his way with little more said than "the juice is flowing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If we assume Han's weapon had a stun capability (EU and RPG territory), he's under no legal obligation to use less lethal force when presented with probable lethal force. Less lethal options are typically less efficient at stopping an opponent. Modern police carry both tasers and handguns. If someone points a gun at them, they aren't going for their taser at all (or at least shouldn't).

 

Depends upon the department. My local department just changed their rules, requiring tasers until lethal force is used. Brandishing doesn't allow them to draw, if the way it was discussed by the PAO was a fair representation. 

 

Greedo may have had his blaster on Stun. For that matter, Han certainly could have put his blaster on Stun, so his use of deadly force cannot be claimed as self-defense by modern sensibilities. Also, was Greedo a licensed bounty hunter in pursuit of a legal bounty? If so, his changes the self-defense argument.

 
Han would likely have known one way or the other. We know Greedo's a bounty hunter; he's attempting to collect the bounty! The question of being licensed or not, we aren't given enough to make the call. 
 
That Han walks off after flipping a few creds to the barkeep would tend to indicate that greedo wasn't licensed, that the barkeep didn't have an issue, and that Greedo wasn't respected. More interesting is that it's one of two murders in a short span by the protagonists - Ben kills another man, one wanted for crimes in at least 5 systems.
 
The implication is that Tatooine has no functioning legal system.

 

Ponda Baba isn't dead, he's just disarmed. Both he and Evazan got away. Greedo is super dead, though. So dead that he got juiced and fermented by the bartender.

 

WELCOME TO THE EU! I also know the horrible story of Feltipern Trevagg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Han would likely have known one way or the other. We know Greedo's a bounty hunter; he's attempting to collect the bounty! The question of being licensed or not, we aren't given enough to make the call.

 

If we limit ourselves to the movie, we don't actually know that Greedo's a bounty hunter nor that there is already a bounty on Han, just like we don't know whether either gun even has a stun setting.  All we know is that he holds Han at gun point because of Han's problems with Jabba.  If we consider Jabba's reaction when he more or less runs into Han walking down the street, makes no real move to capture him, and then threatens to put a price on Han's head, I tend to doubt there even was, strictly speaking, a bounty on Han when Greedo found him in the Cantina.  It seems more likely to me that Jabba had just put word out that he wanted to speak to Han and Greedo got a little overzealous.

 

That Han walks off after flipping a few creds to the barkeep would tend to indicate that greedo wasn't licensed, that the barkeep didn't have an issue, and that Greedo wasn't respected.

 

The fact that Jabba doesn't seem to particularly care that Han killed Greedo also indicates that Greedo wasn't all that respected.  He may not have even been a part of Jabba's organization, but more of a hanger-on trying to make a name for himself, since you might expect a crime lord to object to someone's killing a member of his organization.

 

More interesting is that it's one of two murders in a short span by the protagonists - Ben kills another man, one wanted for crimes in at least 5 systems.

Who did Ben kill?  I know he cut off Ponda Baba's arm, but I didn't think that he died.

 
The implication is that Tatooine has no functioning legal system.
 
Whether there was no functioning legal system on Tatooine as a whole, I think that was at least the implication for Mos Eisley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the purposes of this thread - examining murderous behavior on the part of PCs in the SWRPG - we have to go by the game which states that all blasters have a stun setting and it's merely an incidental to switch to stun. This is the context that I'm using to show that a PC in Han's situation that responded as Han did would be murdering Greedo since he could have stunned him just as easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Greedo had a higher Strain Threshold than his Wound Threshold, which is perhaps a bit unlikely since Rodians only start with a 1 in Willpower, but a 2 in Brawn.

 

Even so, I'm satisfied from the evidence in the movie that in the time and place in question, Han was under no legal imperative to use less-than-lethal force to defend himself against Greedo's threat of lethal force.

 

I don't really buy that there is any general ethical imperative to use less-than-lethal force when defending oneself from the threat of lethal force, but I can certainly see how reasonable minds could differ on that point.

 

Except in the Special Edition, of course.  There it was clear that Greedo posed no threat, so ethically speaking I would agree that Han murdered him.

Edited by lstyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Greedo had a higher Strain Threshold than his Wound Threshold, which is perhaps a bit unlikely since Rodians only start with a 1 in Willpower, but a 2 in Brawn.

 

Even so, I'm satisfied from the evidence in the movie that in the time and place in question, Han was under no legal imperative to use less-than-lethal force to defend himself against Greedo's threat of lethal force.

 

I don't really buy that there is any general ethical imperative to use less-than-lethal force when defending oneself from the threat of lethal force, but I can certainly see how reasonable minds could differ on that point.

 

Except in the Special Edition, of course.  There it was clear that Greedo posed no threat, so ethically speaking I would agree that Han murdered him.

Even in exceptionally liberal locals in the real world, you are allowed to respond to the *perceived* threat. If a person pulls a gun on you that is capable of killing you, regardless of it potentially having a stun setting, you respond to the fact that they are trying to kill you. Han shot at a perceived threat to his life, because he could not possibly know what setting Greedo was on, or if it even had a functional stun setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a legal standpoint I must chime in. Greedo was committing Aggravated Assault (threatening with deadly force) against Han. In self-defense, Han shoots Greedo. A modern US court would likely find Han innocent of any charges, especially regarding Murder

U.S. courts generally find people Not Guilty rather than Innocent, but I agree that Han didn't murder Greedo, but acted in self defense, from an ethical standpoint even if not a legal one.

Greedo had a blaster pointed at Han from like a yard away and had at least implicitly threatened to kill him. For Han to shoot Greedo under those circumstances seems completely defensible.

Now, Special Edition Han is a different story. Special Edition Greedo took a shot at Han from like a yard away and missed, so he clearly wasn't a real threat to Han, but Han killed him anyway. Special Edition Han is one cold dude.

How is missing from a yard make one NOT a threat anymore? Greedo takes a shot, misses, it's not like he's going to be like, "oh wow, I missed so I'm just going to leave now, bye". He is still a threat even more so now that Han knows Greedo is willing to shoot and if he really wants Han dead, will be shooting again taking better aim. So Han still kills in self defense in the Special Edition now that Greedo has become a bigger threat shooting at Han.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law would be more concerned that the barkeep then goes on to render Greedo down to his pungent pheromones to mix into the perfect drink for Jabba...  Oh EU how crazy you are.

 

In any case, like most everyone has said, yes obligation is reasonable.  In my game I basically ask the players, what do you think will happen if you do that?  It's been my experience that many people get a little carried away at first when they start playing a morally grey game. 

 

Collateral damage tf innocent bystanders is the type of thing that gets law enforcement involved, in force, in a hurry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

From a legal standpoint I must chime in. Greedo was committing Aggravated Assault (threatening with deadly force) against Han. In self-defense, Han shoots Greedo. A modern US court would likely find Han innocent of any charges, especially regarding Murder

U.S. courts generally find people Not Guilty rather than Innocent, but I agree that Han didn't murder Greedo, but acted in self defense, from an ethical standpoint even if not a legal one.

Greedo had a blaster pointed at Han from like a yard away and had at least implicitly threatened to kill him. For Han to shoot Greedo under those circumstances seems completely defensible.

Now, Special Edition Han is a different story. Special Edition Greedo took a shot at Han from like a yard away and missed, so he clearly wasn't a real threat to Han, but Han killed him anyway. Special Edition Han is one cold dude.

How is missing from a yard make one NOT a threat anymore? Greedo takes a shot, misses, it's not like he's going to be like, "oh wow, I missed so I'm just going to leave now, bye". He is still a threat even more so now that Han knows Greedo is willing to shoot and if he really wants Han dead, will be shooting again taking better aim. So Han still kills in self defense in the Special Edition now that Greedo has become a bigger threat shooting at Han.

 

I'm pretty sure that was a joke.  Han Shot First.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is missing from a yard make one NOT a threat anymore?

 

It doesn't make him "not a threat anymore," it proves he never was a threat.  I'm just kind of being goofy with that part because it amuses me to suggest that the Special Edition turned Han from a non-murderer to a stone cold killer.

 

So Han still kills in self defense in the Special Edition now that Greedo has become a bigger threat shooting at Han.

 

Honestly I think a Greedo who is so unskilled that he misses from about a yard away has probably revealed that in reality he was less dangerous than he first appeared to be when he pointed the gun at Han because the reasonable assumption was that with a gun pointed right at Han at that range he wouldn't miss.  But I don't really think he's so much less dangerous that Han wasn't justified in killing him in the Special Edition; I just think it's a funny suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Depends upon the department. My local department just changed their rules, requiring tasers until lethal force is used. Brandishing doesn't allow them to draw, if the way it was discussed by the PAO was a fair representation. 

 

 

Sorry to derail, but are you in the US? Because this is f-ing crazy. I hope you are mistaken. Tasers are horribly inaccurate, have a very short range, are often not fully effective (not going to share details for safety reasons). I'm the taser administrator for a larger then average department and I download and review every taser use, so I weekly see how effective they are in the real world. A rule that you have to wait until someone actually shoots at you before using the much more effective firearm is just asking for a cop to get killed. It's Redcoats march in the open versus Colonials hide behind rocks kind of stuff. Go ahead bad guy you get the first shot with the very effective, accurate, long-ranged weapon while I use the often ineffective, inaccurate, short-ranged weapon until you get a shot off at me. If you are in the US I would love to know what department you are speaking of to research this because it will get someone killed. Even the company that makes tasers says not to use them when presented with lethal force. Again, I hope you are mistaken since I've never heard of a policy anywhere in the US that even comes close to this.

 

Just noticed PAO, so that's Canada right? If you have a friend at the department please tell them to do some research on the crazyness of using an ineffective tool when presented with lethal force. Most US departments have a technique of using lethal cover (cop with a firearm) while another cop deploys a taser. That way the cop isn't holding the wrong weapon if the target suddenly pulls a gun or knife.

 

Sorry, back to the current topic. Send tells if you wish Aramis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Depends upon the department. My local department just changed their rules, requiring tasers until lethal force is used. Brandishing doesn't allow them to draw, if the way it was discussed by the PAO was a fair representation. 

 

 

Sorry to derail, but are you in the US? Because this is f-ing crazy. I hope you are mistaken. Tasers are horribly inaccurate, have a very short range, are often not fully effective (not going to share details for safety reasons). I'm the taser administrator for a larger then average department and I download and review every taser use, so I weekly see how effective they are in the real world. A rule that you have to wait until someone actually shoots at you before using the much more effective firearm is just asking for a cop to get killed. It's Redcoats march in the open versus Colonials hide behind rocks kind of stuff. Go ahead bad guy you get the first shot with the very effective, accurate, long-ranged weapon while I use the often ineffective, inaccurate, short-ranged weapon until you get a shot off at me. If you are in the US I would love to know what department you are speaking of to research this because it will get someone killed. Even the company that makes tasers says not to use them when presented with lethal force. Again, I hope you are mistaken since I've never heard of a policy anywhere in the US that even comes close to this.

 

Just noticed PAO, so that's Canada right? If you have a friend at the department please tell them to do some research on the crazyness of using an ineffective tool when presented with lethal force. Most US departments have a technique of using lethal cover (cop with a firearm) while another cop deploys a taser. That way the cop isn't holding the wrong weapon if the target suddenly pulls a gun or knife.

 

Sorry, back to the current topic. Send tells if you wish Aramis.

 

Nope. US.. I hope the PAO is inept, because if she's competent (and she's BRAND new at the PAO job), then they just got nerfed badly. My read of it is that until the target's weapon is leveled at a target, they aren't allowed to shoot unless they're using tasers or capsicum spray. And they aren't allowed to use Capsicum spray unless they're outside, since they killed an uninvolved youth using it at a high school. Also, single officer cars are the norm; only FTOs with Probies run 2-man cars.

Edited by aramis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Han shot first, because Greedo threatened to take his ship. The scene with Jabba after, was completely unnecessary and only turned Jabba into a joke (Han walking on him) which in turn, weakened the tension of the first 30 minutes of ROTJ. The "fan films" lucas made in 1997, is not canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...