Merc's or Murderers

    Just a point or 2 on the thing living aboard the lab ship.   We had a protracted discussion on the Marg ticket about weather we were assassins or merc's , we said we are merc's and we don't just kill people, yet here we are about to murder a person of unknown origins. He has no gun, and thing he has thrown has not exploded. We are a "Heavily Armed" group in battle dress, and he is a single person (yer maybe more than that but we don't know.) We have boarded the ship he was on,  and we are going to kill him. mmmm That's PIRACY. Yes there is more to it than that, but until it can be proven that he is not a legitimate member of this ships crew, we are the pirates. we have been told to leave by the man thing.I would of thought that Runt being a Imperial high law freak and Crow with his legal skills would be against this. We are about to appropriate an occupied ship, that in its self means our claim is void. If the vid 's of us trying to space this dude get out then by by 1200 tonn ship, by by all our cash, by by our future travel plans. Remember they would hang a guy in the old west for stealing a horse. The spinward marches has been described as the wild west in space, Piracy will get us all nuked.

Was going to wait till the meta to discuss this, but I guess the forum is as good a place as any. I guess I should answer this from two points of view - my personal point of view and my character's. From my real life personal point of view I don't believe in killing anyone. Strongly against capital punishment, war and violence in general. If I was personally in Traveller land and a member of this crew then I would definitely have been against any kind of deliberate action that would lead to the death of anyone. I would definitely have been against the Marrg ticket too because that job was pretty much a straight up assassination. Not sure if I agree with you when you call what we're currently doing piracy. We have a right to board a derelict that doesn't respond to hails. If we report the claim and if no owner steps forward then the ship technically becomes our property. So a boogie man on board has been murdering the crew and hanging them up on meat hooks. We meet the guy and he immediately displays hostile intent. Luckily the objects he hurls at us miss, but he clearly displays that he has the capacity to injure or kill us. Isn't listening to reason and poses an immediate  threat to the safety of the crew. Now .. if I was there I'd probably be pushing for us all to just leave. But I'm not there. Kayleb is. I hope by now Kayleb's simple philosophy is clear. First of all he is in the business of killing. It is literally his primary job. Some members of the crew pilot ships, others are engineers. Some turn nobs, press buttons and look at screens. Kayleb identifies threats and kills them. He has defined his own framework in which he does that, but at the end of the day he is employed by this company to keep it's property and personnel safe by eliminating threats. So now he is faced with a threat. First of all he gets the green light from his superior. He then employs the most effective and low risk means of eliminating the threat - venting the atmosphere. Any deviation from his plan - stalling to negotiate or sneaking up to subdue with stun grenades - simply increases the risk to us and decreases the risk to the threat. You will never catch Kayleb waiting till one of us is injured or killed before he decides that something or someone is a threat. He will always be into effective assessment and pre-emptive violence. Whether or not people agree with his methods means almost nothing to him. They can spend the rest of their lives - lives that continue thanks to his violent acts - hating him. That's fine. They're alive and he has done his job. Kayleb's conscience would be clear here for two reasons. We are on this ship legitimately. Laying claim to a derelict is a perfectly legitimate and legal thing to do.  It is reasonable to believe that we are in danger. When you're in danger you have every right to take steps to eliminate danger. Our battledress and ass kickery don't negate the fact that this guy has clearly displayed murderous intent, superhuman strength and speed, and that he is beyond the ability to be negotiated with. There are also other unknowns. Kayleb has previously stated a motto - " Every question mark is a threat ". Could be psionic. A crack in our helmet could let in a deadly virus. He could have a friend. Every unknown is another threat. Again, I think I need to stress that none of Kayleb's thinking reflects my real life philosophy in any way. In real life I believe in  turning the other cheek, loving your enemy and in being a martyr.

Nothing that we have done so far could be considered piracy by any stretch of the imagination. It's completely legal salvage, if that. Considering the fact that the vessel is encrusted in rock, a case could be made that it's more akin to a mineralogical or archaeological find. But let's run with the piracy charge. Piracy: A robbery or forcible  depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo fur- audi, in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. Law Dictionary: What is PIRACY? definition of PIRACY (Black's Law Dictionary) We're certainly not robbing anybody, and we were targeted by violence repeatedly before we took any actions. Then we started talking, with offers of assistance and food. Not exactly depredation. This place has clearly been the scene of a multitude of crimes, both high and low, apparently committed in part or in whole by the wild man who claims that this is "his house." We already know that even if he is a member of the vessel's crew, the ship is owned by a company, so he's not the owner. And since he is clearly either not capable or not willing to salvage the vessel and its contents on behalf of the lawful owners, he has no legal authority to claim the ship. In fact, he is guilty of mutiny or piracy (depending on whether he was originally a crew member or not). In either case, any means we use to protect ourselves and the ship from him are completely legal, even obligatory.. We, on the other hand, having legally claimed the right to salvage the site, have every right to be there and to salvage as much as we can for the owners (with the promise of standard salvage rewards). In point of fact, we're ethically if not legally obligated to offer what assistance we're able to the crew and/or on behalf of the ship's owner (ie, the company who sent them out). Now, our motives may or may not be as pure as all that, but we have certainly not broken any laws as of yet, while the wild man clearly has. If we end up salvaging or scavenging the ship later, and how we go about it may be another discussion, of course. To be honest, however, Crow's two primary concerns about what Izek did last night have nothing to do with these legal issues. One is the safety of our crew and the other is importance of the chain of command. In terms of the safety and security of our crew, Izek was manning a post with another crew member. Namely, he was acting as pilot and de facto Captain on the Aegis, standing by as the escape route for the entire Away Team. This potentially put the entire mission and the Away Team at risk.The Aegis itself was in a precarious position, but Izek abandoned his post, leaving the ship in the hands of a completely unqualified crew person with no possible hope of backup from the Athena. This put the Aegis and Trebor at risk, and potentially risks the lives of anybody who tries to get across to the Aegis from the Athena. Then Izek will have to make the hazardous passage across to the pinnace without a spotter to assist if he fails that Difficult (-2 DM) Zero-G roll, putting himself in additional danger. Add to this the fact that Away Team was in the middle of a hostile situation, but they had to split their attention between their assailant and making sure that they don't accidentally space Izek. Now I understand that the chain of command is not as important to everybody as it is to Crow or some of the other ex-military characters, but we have all discussed how we wanted things to work, ad nauseum . In our first real operation, however, the Second Officer has completely abandoned his post, ignoring the authority of the Mission Commander/First Officer and disobeying direct orders from the Captain. The Away Team had exactly the right people in it, with exactly the right skills, and they were doing just fine. They made a call, while they were "on the ground" and being attacked, and nobody should be trying to mess with that. Even Crow knew that Charoux and his team had to have the freedom to operate as the saw fit at the time. Nobody minded Izek bringing up his concerns over comms, but he decided that his judgement outweighed the MIssion Commander's and that the welfare of an unknown hostile(s) overrode all other priorities, even the welfare of himself and all of his crew mates. I get that Izek didn't feel that the guy was that big of a threat, and although I don't see how he could feel that way, he has every right to his opinion. But it wasn't his call to make. It was Charoux's, and Charoux dutifully sought and took into account the input of his Security Chief, then he sought to reason with the guy, and then he took the decision. Even if Crow might have prefered to have it done some other way, he would publicly support Charoux's decision. As a Command Officer, Izek should have done the same. If he wanted to take the matter up privately with Charoux later, or with Crow, or even Sebastien or the Board later, that would have been fine. As is, however, he's pissed off all over our command structure and completely ignored virtually every other character's opinions and concerns. I don't even want to think about how this might affect discipline and morale amongst the npc's.

1/As for the chain of command we had decided that military / security type actions were the remit of runt so the chain of command thing is BS. 2/the person in charge doesn't have a mic, so it takes forever for a command to be issues. 3/ i was saying in text that we didn't need to kill him. and you can' question dead people. 4/ the shuttle i had previously stated was in a "Parked" orbit". 5/And as Far as we know this dude has every right to order us off this ship. 6/we have no proof that he was murdering and eating people, and if he did, he might of had no option about who/what he ate. 7If some is suspected of commuting crimes, you have the right to detain some but you don't have the right to kill some one. 8/Throwing thing and saying "get out of my home" wont stand up as an excuse as to why our first response was to space some one. 9most of the crew might be happy not to be implicated in murder. 10and i call bull shit that any one thought that Izak might be spaced. especially since is always in BD and he was prob in space when the spacing happened, if not arguing with Gerald about the hatch he had closed. 11 So much for all the QQ we had over weather we were murderers, how most of the group would not of taken the hit job on Marg because they are not into murder. 12 as for the dude reported speed and strength, we have no idea exactly how strong he is and what may be the reason. 13 as for Run all that talk about Imperial High Law, is that a typical imperial thing, "do as i say , not as i do"? 14 a neg of 2 to a dex roll for Izek is no much of a worry. And Izek has always been willing to risk his life to save people whom he thinks have a right to live. 15 he clearly stated "get out of my home" while yes we have some rights to ask questions, people are not required by law to answer to any body that's not a registered law enforcer. Yes we have made a claim on a derelict, that claim is null an void because of an existing occupant.  I believe that this a law enforcement issue and while the local planet has SFA law, we are still bound by imperial high law regarding piracy and murder in space.

I feel the need to say at this point that I totally love what Vic were doing with Isek. They say that conflict is at the heart of all good drama, and drama is exactly what this campaign needs. I really wish that Isek had come running through the lab ship, and that it became a race to see who could do  what first. I even wish that if it looked like he was going to lose the race, that he would take his helmet off, tell us all that he had done so, and force us to change our plans. Because as legal and as justifiable as our actions may be, there is another side to the coin. For all of Runt's danger "Question marks" there are also ethical  question marks. What if the guy is only temporarily insane and curable?  What if the superstrength is only an illusion created by the low gravity and centrifugal dynamics (if you throw an object against the direction of rotation it could escape the effects of the centrifugal  force ) of the ship? And what if this is the owner of the ship? The way our characters respond to things pretty much defines them. I reckon that's awesome.

Gah ... you made your post while I was typing. Don't agree with point one. Chain of command is a mess, but it's still a thing. And we should still get our bottoms spanked for not respecting it. Seeing that it wasn't technically a combat op it wasn't necessarily Kayleb's show. I was ready to go as far as leading the group goes however. Even wrote out a short SMEAC briefing! But TT was pretty quick off the mark making it clear that he was calling the shots. Kayleb inwardly giggled to himself when Charoux treated him as his personal grunt - putting him "on point" and everything. It was a joke he was happy to laugh along to however. When the Captain isn't physically present the XOs actually have a job. As a player I didn't want to take that job away from TT. In Character Kayleb would believe that Charoux's first mistatke was not passing the ball to Kayleb as soon as the situation looked potentially violent. But it's his call. If Charoux want's to take responsibility for whatever mess this op descends into that's fine with Kayleb! The rest of what you say, I half agree half disagree with most of it. Does highlight a couple of important truths that I think we all need to embrace: Our "in character" attitudes and actions can be vastly different from our "real life" out of character actions and beliefs. We need to do our best to keep them separate. It's okay to disagree about stuff. Mainly because of the point above, but also because disagreement and conflict literally forms the core of any good story. Note that it's "Star Wars" and not "Star Diplomatic Negotiations between agreeable people". 

Well i thought TT was our spy not our search and rescue dude. Going into an unknown and potentially hostile situation was always runts remit. And no disrespect to TT but until he gets a mic working its going to be hard for him to be in charge of ordering ppl about.

VIC e. said: Well i thought TT was our spy not our search and rescue dude. Going into an unknown and potentially hostile situation was always runts remit. And no disrespect to TT but until he gets a mic working its going to be hard for him to be in charge of ordering ppl about. Meh ... yeah I guess? He's not just the spy guy though. He's an Executive Officer. That's got to mean something . On that second point ... yeah fully! Get a mike TT!

Fine. “1/As for the chain of command we had decided that military / security type actions were the remit of runt so the chain of command thing is BS. “ From the  Artemis Group By-Laws Chief of Security The Chief of Security is responsible to the Captain and the Command Officers for the maintenance, repair and operation of the ship’s weapon systems and ordnance, as well as the maintenance and security of the ships locker and all small arms and personal armor. The Chief of Security is also responsible, in conjunction with the Chief Science Officer and/or Ship’s Doctor for the safety of the crew, passengers and of the ship in general. The Security Chief tracks and requisitions ammunition, ordnance and spare parts for all of the ship’s weapons and security systems and measures. The Chief of Security is also the direct supervisor of any crew specifically assigned as gunners, marines or security personnel, subject to the approval of the Captain. a. Confinement: The Chief of Security, under the command of the Captain, is empowered to hold individuals deemed to be criminals, enemies or otherwise dangerous to the ship, crew or passengers confined to quarters or in the Ship’s Brig and to take all measures needed to keep them there until such time as the Captain authorizes their release or transfer. If you'll recall, people objected to my original version of the "Ground Forces Commander" position, so we separated the Security Chief for shipboard security and decided that the Captain/CEO/Board to assign Mission Commanders based on the requirements of specific missions. Of course, even if you were right about who had the authority, Charoux asked Kayleb what they should do, and Kayleb was all for the whole spacing thing. I think it was his idea. Even if not, he was certainly on board. So Charoux was listening to Runt, but Izek was ignoring his advice. "2/the person in charge doesn't have a mic, so it takes forever for a command to be issues. " I agree that that can be frustrating. I’m not sure what that it had to do with what you did, though. Charoux had already issued orders. You just chose to ignore them. "3/ i was saying in text that we didn't need to kill him. and you can' question dead people." Yes, you said that. We all saw that. We just disagreed, or at least let Charoux make the call anyway. "4/ the shuttle i had previously stated was in a "Parked" orbit"." I can’t what imagine “Parked Orbit” inside an electromagnetically unstable swarm of swirling rocks and meteors zooming through space could possibly mean. Regardless of what it might mean, however, that ship and its passenger were Izek’s responsibilities and he abandoned them. Bob already made the completely unskilled guy you left “in charge” of the shuttle a Pilot check, and he said that he would be requiring more regularly, so clearly there’s some risk. "5/And as Far as we know this dude has every right to order us off this ship." As I already explained, NO , we know that he doesn’t have any rights. According to the Law of Salvage , if he is in no position to salvage the ship for its owners, he has no right to it. As the people who are in the position to legally salvage the ship, we have the right to be there and to salvage the ship. If he is one of the original crew he may have a right to be there, but he has no right to interfere with our lawful salvage of the ship, and we have every right to defend ourselves from him while we salvage it. "6/we have no proof that he was murdering and eating people, and if he did, he might of had no option about who/what he ate." You’re right that we don’t have any proof that he did anything, but we don’t need proof. We’re not putting him or trial, we’re trying to decide how much of a threat we think he is. Most of us believe that all of the dead bodies and the super strength and speed to give us good reasons to be worried about that. "7If some is suspected of commuting crimes, you have the right to detain some but you don't have the right to kill some one." Again, we’re not making a citizen’s arrest. Sure, that might have been the best possible outcome of that encounter, but the people who were putting their safety on the line, and whose job it was to gauge the danger decided that was impossible or too risky. "8/Throwing thing and saying "get out of my home" wont stand up as an excuse as to why our first response was to space some one. " Our first response wasn’t to space him. We tried to talk, we also tried to figure out ways to get at him with stun grenades, but he was too well dug in. We were in our legal rights to salvage the vessel, to retrieve the remains of the crew and return the results of the research to the rightful owners. Which is the company that owned the ship, the crew’s families and the folks who financed the expedition, respectively. "9most of the crew might be happy not to be implicated in murder." You’re probably right. Good thing we weren’t implicating anybody in murder. We were protecting the lives and safety of our crew while operating a lawful salvage mission. I'm going to go ahead and bet that they'd be OK with that. "10and i call bull shit that any one thought that Izak might be spaced. especially since is always in BD and he was prob in space when the spacing happened, if not arguing with Gerald about the hatch he had closed." Call bullshit if you want, but I know you heard Alby specifically hold up on what he was doing while he tried to make sure you wouldn’t be injured. In fact, you replied that Gerald was closing the airlock. That meant time spent over comms and so on. Real time in-game that the Away Team spent worrying about Izek while they were in a dangerous situation. "11 So much for all the QQ we had over weather we were murderers, how most of the group would not of taken the hit job on Marg because they are not into murder." Now I call bullshit. This is nothing at all like Maargh. This guy attacked us, not the other way around. We have tried to speak with him, give him a peaceful way out. "12 as for the dude reported speed and strength, we have no idea exactly how strong he is and what may be the reason. " No idea why that matters. He’s fast enough that we couldn’t get a beam on him with all of our expertise and tech, and he was strong enough to toss stuff at us with impunity and even threw a table leg hard enough that it got buried into the bulkhead. So we know he's at least as powerful as that, possibly moreson. We also don't know if there are any more like him, or if there are any crew or other survivors who need help. "13 as for Run all that talk about Imperial High Law, is that a typical imperial thing, "do as i say , not as i do"?" Again, we were not in any way breaking the law. "14 a neg of 2 to a dex roll for Izek is no much of a worry. And Izek has always been willing to risk his life to save people whom he thinks have a right to live." What about the Tebor and the rest of the Away Team? What gave you the right to risk all of their lives? You had an important job to do and you blew it off. the life you risked wasn’t just yours in this case- it was also all of the lives of the rest of the others were relying on you. You were supposed to be a member of a team. "15 he clearly stated "get out of my home" while yes we have some rights to ask questions, people are not required by law to answer to any body that's not a registered law enforcer. Yes we have made a claim on a derelict, that claim is null an void because of an existing occupant. I believe that this a law enforcement issue and while the local planet has SFA law, we are still bound by imperial high law regarding piracy and murder in space." As I’ve explained, it legally wasn’t his home. You’re absolutely right that he didn’t really have any obligation to answer our questions, but weren’t you just alleging that our first reaction was to space him? It wasn’t, it was to try to talk to him, but now we weren’t supposed to do that either? As to your idea that our salvage claim is null and void because somebody is aboard, you’re simply mistaken. An occupant means exactly nothing. Even if he were the original Captain of the ship, unless he is willing and able to salvage the ship for its owners he has no right to interfere with our attempts to do so. That’s what I meant when I said that he’s actually guilty of either piracy or mutiny by trying to stop us. Whoever this guy is, he is clearly not going to salvage this ship and its cargo for the owners, but the ship and cargo still belong to their original owners not him. And the families of the crew have a right to get the remains of their loved ones. Crow would be happy if we can get the guy to peacefully let us do our work here, and I'm sure everybody else would be, too. As you said yourself, we have made a point of not being bloodthirsty killers before, and we're really not trying to do that here.  But if the guy is going to continue attacking our people, and he's going to make us choose between him and our crew? You know who Crow chooses.

Like Alby, I missed several posts while I was typing my last post. Purely as a roleplayer I can see where Alby's coming from in terms of the drama and everything. If it had played out something like Alby described, it might even have enjoyed it. Certainly in the way it did play out, I was/am too worried about how it might yet end up, both as a player and as a character. The whole chain of command thing is mostly all in-character Jacob stuff, and he (not I) is pissed about it. I do think, though,  that I would enjoy the game a lot more as a player if everybody wasn't always constantly arguing over everything we do and going off and doing their own things without any consideration for the others. A little conflict is good. Constant conflict with no hope for any kind of resolution is just no fun to me.

VIC e. said: Well i thought TT was our spy not our search and rescue dude. Going into an unknown and potentially hostile situation was always runts remit. And no disrespect to TT but until he gets a mic working its going to be hard for him to be in charge of ordering ppl about. Actually, Charoux is a self-described "Tech-hunter." He does kinda do the general spy thing for us, it's true, but I really thought a mysterious, derelict lab ship stuck inside an electromagnetic anomaly might be a good opportunity for him to shine.

That's really interesting stuff about the "Law of Salvage". I didn't know most of that. There are obviously echoes of it in the Traveller Rules. While the Mongoose rules for it are a bit thin :"Imperial law permits salvage, but the discovery must be registered fi rst with the system starport, if any." .... and that's pretty much it ... T20 has rules that are far more details. I know we're not playing T20, but its a handy reference. For anyone interested: SALVAGE RIGHTS Salvage is the reqard given to persons who voluntarily recover a derelict ship or cargo, or assist a ship or recover its cargo from impending or actual peril or loss. To file a salvage claim, the vessel and/or its cargo must be grought to the nearest class C or better Starport, whether repaired and piloted in, or towed in. Derelict : A derelict is any ship, vehicle, equipment, cargo or other property, which has been abandoned and deserted at sea or in space by those who were in charge of it without any hope of recovering it. Peril or Loss: A ship is considered to be at risk r peril of loss if under pirate attack, in danger of being stranded without hope of self-repair, or other situation that might cause the death or disability of crew or passengers. Government Owned: Items originally owned by a government are immediately returned to the government, and the normal salvage rules do not apply, although most governments will pay a 'recovery' fee for such items, based on 1d6% of the original value. If the salvager has the Barter feat and makes a successful Charisma or Social Standing skill check (DC15), add 1d4% to the recovery fee. GETTING PAID Once a claim has been filed with the proper authorities, they will attempt to locate and contact the original (or current) owners, who have 10 years to file a claim of ownership (with proper documentation of course). Perishable goods, or goods that may significantly lose their value during the 10 year period are immediately sold at auction, the proceeds from which will be held in trust. In addition, any items that would cost more to repair than to replace will be sold for scrap at a price equal to 1d10% of the original value of the item(s). The Item(s) may not be sold or otherwise transferred into the custody/ownership of anyone other than the salvage claim holder and his or her designated heirs. Reasonable care must be given to ensure that the remaining value of the items (s) do not deteriorate in quality from the state they were when custody was awarded. Repairs and improvements to damaged equipment and vessels may be conducted, the independently evaluated and depreciated value of which may be added to the claim against the original owners should they ever come forward or be found. If a claimant does not come forward within 5 years, the custodial agent may elect to sell the item(s) for best price. One-half must be paid to the appropriate authorities in the form of taxes and fees, with one quarter being awarded to the salvage claim holder, and the remaining being kept by the authorities. If a claimant does not come forward within the ten year limit, the remaining funds in trust are awarded to the salvage claim holder. If a claimant is found, regardless of whether they come forward or not, the salvage claim holder will be awarded a judicial judgment against the owner in an amount equal to 25% of the original or improved value of the item(s). It will be up to the salvage claim holder to see the judicial judgement is enforced and paid.

Alby said: That's really interesting stuff about the "Law of Salvage". I didn't know most of that. Yeah, we went through all this in the past, so we already know how this stuff works. That's why I was so confident when I said that I knew we were in the right while we were playing and then again in the forum. To be honest I didn't even realize that you guys weren't with us for that. I lose track sometimes.

I'm sorry. I've been biting on my tongue about this since Sunday night, but I can't keep it in. It's completely OOC, but I can't help but laugh that the one character who as actually killed somebody in cold blood, his own cousin no less, has anointed himself as our group conscience. A cheap shot, perhaps, but too ironic to ignore.

Yet its the lawyer that sanctions killing.

VIC e. said: Yet its the lawyer that sanctions killing. ... funnily enough that's exactly his character's job. Mercenary units going into combat need to make sure that their ops are legally legit. But guys ... we really have to start giving each other permission to play our characters how we feel they should be played. If we believe that our character would have issues with another character's actions, then play it out in the game. Bullying folks out of the game to play their character a certain way is really going to damage fun levels. ... and yeah that was a bit of a cheap shot Wolfen! A bullseye maybe but still cheap. ;)

Alby said: VIC e. said: Yet its the lawyer that sanctions killing. ... funnily enough that's exactly his character's job. Mercenary units going into combat need to make sure that their ops are legally legit. But guys ... we really have to start giving each other permission to play our characters how we feel they should be played. If we believe that our character would have issues with another character's actions, then play it out in the game. Bullying folks out of the game to play their character a certain way is really going to damage fun levels. ... and yeah that was a bit of a cheap shot Wolfen! A bullseye maybe but still cheap. ;) See, that whole "giving each other permission to play our characters how we feel they should be played" thing isn't so simple. It's a chicken and egg thing. We've all been trying to play our characters the way we feel they should be played, but in doing so, we've been stomping all over one another's toes, stepping on one another's lines. The whole point of restructuring the company and trying to set up a chain of command was to avoid that, but we can't, each of us, stop trying to make every freaking event about ourselves.  Everybody knows jump-space physics better than the chief engineer, everybody knows law and ethics better than the lawyer, nobody pays attention to mission commander or the security chief about on how to perform their jobs. And God forbid anybody listens to the fucking Captain about any damned thing. We refuse to respect one another's roles. And on the other side of the coin, if you want to do whatever you think your character should do without regards to how it effects other characters, you should find a Ref to run a solo campaign for you. Or maybe check out this gm-less gaming thing I've been hearing about. But if you want to play with other people, in a team, you have to communicate with your teammates, minimize your secrets from them, and occasionally you have to let them make decisions- even if you don't agree with them- and you back them up anyway. You don't hare off on your own and leave your teammates hanging, you don't betray them, and you sure as hell don't abandon your post in a dangerous situation because you have a wild hair across your ass and you want to go and show up your supposed teammates and short circuit what they're trying to do. At least that's how I've always gamed. There are always exceptions, of course, in the name of good role-playing. But they should be exceptions , not the norm.

so much for nothing to discuss in metta...

Yeah .... I think you may have scored another bulls-eye there. Sharp shooting Tex!

Well ill tell you what, since im such a disruptive influence ill just leave the game and save you all the hassel.

.. Vic I think that'd be a big mistake. Let me tell you why (Hope you're still here to read this). Playing a conscience in the current situation has elevated this game. I'm sad that you've taken up the fight out of character, but the current game has been transformed from a board game into an actual role playing game. The actions of your character have been - in my opinion - more constructive than disruptive. The out of character drama we could live with out, but in the game struggling to get our party to spare the survivor has brought in life and drama. I will be very pissed off if you took that away by leaving the game. Your taking some things the wrong way. Not sure how many times I've told you that I agree with your stance about letting this guy live. You still seem to think I disagree with you. Forget my character's motivations for a moment - as a player I want with all my heart for your character to run through the ship and to save this guy. At the very least to be on the comms shout your case to us. It's Isak's role as an XO to "advise the Captain". Get in his ear and advise him as loud as you like! That's you're character's role!  I think Wolfen's point in a nutsell ( correct me if I'm wrong here ) is that as a group we haven't been good at respecting each other's roles. I think we can all improve on that. Find your character's niche and stick to it, and let other players run with their character's role. If our characters don't get their way I guess we have a choice. I think it's better to take it like a man and get on with the game than it is to pick up your ball and go home for a sulk. Or even worse to be a spanner in the works and bring things to a grinding halt and bitch until you have your way ... I may be guilty of that :( ... Anyway .. Man up and stay. Game would be better with you here. We've listened and heard you. Point taken. Now lets get on with the show and let this stuff play out in the game.

VIC e. said: so much for nothing to discuss in metta... Yeah, I guess I mistook the relative silence in the forum for a couple of days there as a sign that we would be able to handle all of this relatively peacefully in character. VIC e. said: Well ill tell you what, since im such a disruptive influence ill just leave the game and save you all the hassel. I think if you look at my post you'll see that I wasn't just talking about you. We have all been guilty of these things. That includes me. The real problem is that its getting worse and worse, to the point that we can't get thru a session without devolving into a pack of squabbling hyenas. And as for somebody leaving, it seems that you guys all think this kind of play is fun and exciting. It elevates the game. Since I'm the odd man out, my characters will cash out as of Regina. I'll finish the deck plans for the Athena and make sure Alby, or whoever, is up to speed on the commerce stuff. EDIT: Please don't mistake this for a "Rage Quit." It's just that I've suddenly realized that I am the one with the problems. You guys all want to play a different kind of game than I do. Just as when I (and I alone) made a big issue when Charoux and Galen went down to the dig site in Bowman without telling the rest of us, I seem to be the only one who really has a problem with what happened last Sunday. I don't enjoy this kind of gaming, just like I don't do PVP in MMO's. You guys shouldn't all be forced to adjust to my needs, and I'm the one who's really not enjoying playing like this. No hard feelings. I've had a lot of fun playing with all of you.

Errr .. Me Gurrrd! C'mon guys! I hate PVP in MMOs too. For the record you were not the only one who had issues with Galen's and Charoux's misadventures. And you're not the only one upset by the antics last Sunday. It's just that this stuff should be sorted out in character. My guess is that Galen and Charoux were actually on a politically motivated mission that they felt needed to be kept quiet. The Captain and the rest of the crew should be ticked by it. Galen and Charoux should be happy to wear the consequences of their actions. That's not PvP. That's just role playing. Same with last Sunday. If one character has a sensitive conscience and has a problem with what the rest of the party is doing, I would expect them to speak up. If they don't, this isn't really a role playing game. It's a combat/trading simulation board game.  Our problems seem to be that our character's actions are spilling over into our out of character relationships. This is a common problem in many roleplaying game communities. I've seen this same drama played out many times. I attempted to address this in a DnD community I used to be a part of. Made a video. CLICK ON THIS! DO IT!

Your video is awesome, Alby. Thanks for sharing it. I watched your Halloween video, too. I have a whole new appreciation for Grobble. I won't say that I don't sometimes take the game personally. I do and I know that. But that's usually temporary, and after a while, my common sense kicks in and reminds me that it's just a game and it's not meant personally. This happened in the current situation- Wolfen the player was angry Sunday night. By Monday morning, however, that was over. When I posted my long reply to Vic's long post, I might have shown some of Wolfen's frustration with the way the game has been running lately, but the only anger was specifically Captain Crow's anger at Izek.  That part about being frustrated with the way the game has been running, however, is still there, and has been there for quite a while now. This isn't an in-game or in-character thing. This is about Wolfen the player really not enjoying playing in a game where the players seem to go out of their way to find and foster conflict between each other and their characters, and compete to make their own characters look good without regard for the other players or characters. I get that some people consider that role-playing and that they enjoy it. Personally, I've found that kind of role-playing unrealistic and game destroying. If any group of people fought and argued as consistently as some groups do, realistically, they would go their own ways at the earliest opportunity. It's not too hard to see how this applies to our group. We all have more than enough money to go and do whatever we want, and without some kind of binding factor like friendship, mutual respect or a common purpose, it makes no sense for us to stay together.  If, due to some kind of sado-masochistic co-dependency, such a group should stay together, they shouldn't survive very long. The only reason that we haven't lost party members or experienced a TPK over some of our idiotic misadventures is because first Pakkrat, and now Bob have kept us alive despite ourselves. Don't believe me? Consider Charoux and Galen miraculously surviving a horde of pullers for more than a day on a hostile world virtually untouched. Or Jeff and Crow wrestling in an open airlock in jumpspace while a powerful ancient artifact explodes just meters away. How about leaving your only escape vehicle "parked" without a pilot in an electromagnetic maelstrom within a meteor swarm zooming thru space at thousands of km per minute. A less warm and fuzzy, friendly Ref (like me, for example) would have let us reap what we've sown. While the Referees' kindness is well-meant, it actually does the game no real favors. People in this group are constantly bickering over "realism." To me, the fact that any of the above examples (or any of the many  similar ones) didn't end in tragedy does far, far more damage to my suspension of disbelief than any misrepresentation of astrophysics. It also means that we don't learn from our mistakes, because no matter how carelessly we act, we come through unblemished. Hell, even when we've called one another on our thoughtless acts, we've taken to just retroactively changing the timeline to suit us.   You can't even call it role-playing. If, as Alby suggested, a player really wanted his character to go out on a limb and do something that risked physical danger and/or his teammates' ire, and he was responsible for the consequences, that would be good role-playing. Both Runt and Jeff have shown us good examples of this- they got in trouble for in-character reasons and then accepted and role-played the consequences. Unfortunately, when you retroactively leave a message to cover your ass, or try to make a case that you can safely "park" a shuttle in some of the most hazardous circumstances imaginable, you are specifically undercutting your teammates' ability roleplay their reactions to your fuck-ups. You literally are stealing the game and excluding your teammates' characters from the action. Hell, even if you just discuss your plan to do something crazy or underhanded to the other players ahead of time, and get their OK, that could be good roleplaying, or at least good story-telling, because everybody is in on  the gag or the action. That can create great opportunities for everybody to participate and enjoy the game. Runt's nuking of the Psionic Institute on Wypoc is kind of an example of this. But by and large that's not what this group does. At least to me, this group seems to be more about one-upmanship and fighting for the spotlight. As players, we're working at cross-purposes almost as much as our characters are. When I game, I want to be part of a group, a team of people who are as interested in each other's enjoyment of the game as their own. In this game, especially lately, I have been pouring buttloads of time and energy into trying to make the game fun for everybody, and I really don't feel like I've been getting anything back except criticism and heartburn. Sunday night was the last straw for me because it was the first real test of the new corporate structure that I thought we all agreed upon. I worked my ass off to get that framework together, dealt with everybody's concerns and criticisms, made sure everybody was on board. I thought we all understood that the whole point was to set everybody up with their special role in the group, and that we would then help each other shine in our own areas. Sunday night was supposed to be a time for Charoux to shine as First Officer and Tech-hunter, with Runt and Jeff taking point in a spooky derelict ship and hotshot pilot Izek ready as their escape route and lifeline. Once the lab ship was secured, Drex, Taroon and Gerald would come in and take over. BUT, in true form, we made it into a clusterfuck of ego and pettiness. That's where I'm coming from right now. Take it for what it's worth. I am willing to discuss it this Sunday night, in a meta-type session. I've enjoyed this campaign enough in the past, and have invested enough into it that I owe you all that much.

Don't want to jump the gun - was going to wait till Sunday to say this - but I am a big fan of consequences. I 'm sad when my character's die, but I'm sometimes just as sad if my character is saved by GM deus ex machina. The concept of risk vs reward also evaporates pretty quickly when the risks aren't actually risks. Let's just say one or more of our character's died because we didn't kill this space hulk creature fast enough - and if we weren't fast enough because of Isek's capers. I'd be a hard lesson to learn, but maybe we should let a stuff up be a stuff up. Let the character responsible bear the consequences for that - demotion, docking of pay, termination or whatever.  Or maybe attempting to kill the Hulk too quickly will have it's consequences? Maybe Isek's right? Either way, if we stuff up in character let's be willing to bear the consequences in character. We have established a solid chain of command, so going out of line means a lot more than it used do. Back when I first started here is was more loose moose. Those days are gone. We're running a tighter ship now. Let's feel the tightness.

Alby said: It's okay to disagree about stuff. Mainly because of the point above, but also because disagreement and conflict literally forms the core of any good story. Note that it's "Star Wars" and not "Star Diplomatic Negotiations between agreeable people".  Make it “disagreeable people”, and you have “Babylon 5”. Great show.

Wolfen, Charoux didn’t go with Galen alone to that temple well on Bowman because he had no regard for the consequences; he did it because it was his job to accept those potential consequences. As a spy, it’s his job to do whatever it takes to ferret out secrets for the sake of the company. If Galen was determined to keep things that only he knew close to the vest, it was Charoux’s job to play along as much as possible in order to get his hands on those secrets. Admittedly, Galen screwing up his grav-belt piloting didn’t help things; but that was a risk that Galen chose to take. On the way there, we made stealth piloting checks and stealth rolls, in order to mitigate the risks we were taking. I also want to reiterate that Charoux wanted the Jump Drive secured before we left without it; if going back for it was a deliberate plot on Charoux’s part, he wouldn’t have advocated strongly for securing it beforehand; he would have said nothing about it, and only brought it up after-the-fact.

Tenacious Techhunter said: Wolfen, Charoux didn’t go with Galen alone to that temple well on Bowman because he had no regard for the consequences; he did it because it was his job to accept those potential consequences. As a spy, it’s his job to do whatever it takes to ferret out secrets for the sake of the company. If Galen was determined to keep things that only he knew close to the vest, it was Charoux’s job to play along as much as possible in order to get his hands on those secrets. Admittedly, Galen screwing up his grav-belt piloting didn’t help things; but that was a risk that Galen chose to take. On the way there, we made stealth piloting checks and stealth rolls, in order to mitigate the risks we were taking. I also want to reiterate that Charoux wanted the Jump Drive secured before we left without it; if going back for it was a deliberate plot on Charoux’s part, he wouldn’t have advocated strongly for securing it beforehand; he would have said nothing about it, and only brought it up after-the-fact. TT, you are amazing. Do you honestly still believe your own bullshit, or are you just dead set on never admitting your mistakes? Crow is pissed because what Charoux did made no sense, regardless of your rationales. We've gone thru this, and I realize that you refuse to admit that your reasons completely fall apart the moment you realize that there was no good reason to do it then or to do it without letting us know. More importantly, if anything had happened to you guys our main clue was gone, and we would have had a much harder chance to deal with that mess. If it were even possible. These things have been discussed and you're not changing the facts by reiterated or spinning them. And before you start about your contingencies and timed messages, remember that you have already admitted that you didn't make all that shit up until Crow confronted Charoux in character well after the fact. More to the point, Pakkrat confirmed that you never told him that you were taking any of those actions. And that is the real issue. What your character did in-character , and how my character reacted to it, in-character , is all part of the game. We actually had an awesome RP confrontation over that, and it was cool. Very cool, actually. IF we had run with it, it might even have become the impetus to forge some kind of new relationship between the two characters. BUT, rather than accept the consequences or even simply admit that you could possibly have ever done anything wrong, you retroactively made up excuses that had never actually happened in game to cover your ass. You effectively shut down and set a match to that entire role-play session; all of my character's actions and statements, all of your own and even all of Runt's and Gev's asides and reactions. None of that was as important as you being able to pretend that TT the player and Charoux the character could never possibly do wrong. And you apparently expect us all to just take it. I don't know, maybe that's how you always play, and how you like to play. For me, it's no different than habitually lying about your die rolls in tabletop. And in this case, you specifically stomped all over my toes as a player by effectively rewriting an extremely important RP interaction. The fact that you still can't see that, and that everybody else is good with swallowing it, is exactly my point.

... Actually Woflen, I think I'm half with TT here. What Charoux and Galen did always made sense to me. Even though I never knew the exact details, it seemed obvious that the Darrian members of our crew knew something that the rest of us didn't, and that they were prepared to do something crazy to keep it that way. Even if Charoux's " I was spying on Galen for the company " line is BS, it's perfectly acceptable BS. If that BS is to cover up the fact that they are both loyal to their Confederation and eager to keep any artifacts their Confederation found out of Imperial hands then that's bloody awesome! Lets face it, even Players of Imperial characters were hesitant to let the Imperium in on the things that we found in Bowman. So even without knowing the details, the capers of the Darrian boys made sense to me. Made sense the same way leaving Kayleb out of the mission to deliver Marrg's head to Isis made sense. Like not telling Luke Skywalker about his Father or his Sister makes sense... from a certain point of view ... Sometimes it makes sense for some characters to be kept out of some parts of our story. And as frustrating as it may be for the players of those characters ( Was really looking forward to another meeting between Isis and Kayleb :( ) it's sometimes a pill we need to swallow. That stuff about securing the jump drive - I have no idea what TT's talking about. Again, some of us get left out of stuff. It's okay. If it's about the pre Majiz drive then again I fully expect that Charoux would have in place a plot to take it back to the Confederation. And if that is the case then I fully expect us to be fed BS in order to cover up that plan. Again, I may be totally wrong about that. He may be totally loyal to the company and the Imperium. But ... he is a "spy" right? ... Being a spy I would fully expect him to lie to us regularly and to be acting on behalf of the Confederation rather than in the interest of the company or the Imperium. I would almost be disappointed if that wasn't the case.

See, Alby, that's the thing. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, you are willing to give TT the benefit of the doubt. I just don.t have it in me. But, like I said, as a player, I could have kept my reactions to that whole thing in-character. Crow is pissed at Charoux and no longer trusts him. And I played that. Even if Wolfen the player didn't buy the bullshit and thought that potentially cutting the rest of the party out of an important or even climactic scene was a shitty thing to do, I could have lived with it and just dealt with it in game.  The moment he started making stuff up retroactively to avoid the consequences of his poor handling of the situation, however, it became meta. It became cheating, and not cheating to save your character's life or the lives of teammates, but cheating because he fucked up while betraying our trust but he didn't want to face the music. The very fact that I keep having to explain this and nobody gets it tells me that I'm the one who's out of synch with the group. That's why I'm leaving the game. You guys seem to be on the same page, so you don't need me pitching fits over stuff that you don't care about. That's not good or fun for any of us. I'd like to think that I might want to come back in the future, and that you guys might have me back, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't kill off my characters. If you'd like to keep one or both of them around that's fine, too, at least until you can replace them. I'd also prefer that they get bought out, rather than just forfeiting their shares, more on principle than anything, but I won't be there, so of course you can do what you like. I'm still pretty sick, so I probably won't catch up with you to go through the Trade and Commerce stuff today, Alby, but I'll make a point of getting together with you Wednesday, if not before. In regards to the Athena deck plan, I'd actually really prefer that you guys just take that over, but if you simply can't get it done, I will try to work on it as I can.

. .. tells me that I'm the one who's out of synch with the group. You've said words to that effect a couple of times. I think the main reason I'm trying to get you to stick around is because there's not much synch to be in synch with! Don't mistake me trying to go down the whole "blessed are the cheese makers" route as though I'm in sync with stuff. It's more accurate to say that I'm struggling to keep the peace despite the fact that there is no sync. You've been trying for a while to get a solid chain of command in place. I personally believe that a tight ship is potentially the salvation of this group. Serious consequences should be making people think twice before they wander off and start doing their own thing. After a few pay days get docked folks should start getting the idea. Personally I believe that if there is anything we all need to get "in sync" with its the idea of unity. Even if our character's have great reasons to be a spanner in the works from time to time, we should make up our minds to make that a small spanner rather than a big one. If we go into any kind of argument with the chain of command or the rest of the group we should go in with an exit strategy. I'm hoping folks will keep fighting the good fight for unity rather than give up before we've given the new company structure a chance to work it's magic.

Wolfen, the fact that you think what I’m saying is an excuse is entirely missing the point. It’s a spy’s job to get the goods even if it makes him seem like he’s betrayed the group in the meantime. That’s called being a spy . That’s Charoux’s job . It’s what he’s around for . So long as Charoux brings everyone in before any advantage is lost, that should be fine with everyone; and if it isn’t fine with you , I don’t know what to tell you. What you are really complaining about is that Charoux followed a stupid old man down to a planet. I don’t get that. As far as the contingency message goes, how much game time do you really want me to spend listing spycraft contingencies? How much time do you really want me to spend listing all the things he would be doing, but that would have no practical benefit in-game a majority of the time? Standard operating procedure for a paranoid is boring . So no, I didn’t specifically ask Pakkrat to implement a backup message that never would have, or even did, make it into gameplay proper. It’s enough that Charoux would , isn’t it?