[Amber] Playing with Strict Karma

[Simon W]

So... yeah.  It's a problem.  Anybody got a fiendishly simple and brilliant idea for fixing it?  I'll bake a batch of brownies and eat them in your honor if you do!

Fortune.

In Amber (I know your moving away from the rules, but they might be helpful here) there is such a thing as 'Stuff'. Good and bad.

So to take Jonathan's example, the character with bad stuff does end up looking a complete arse. How long this lasts and the wider effects are based on his level of bad stuff.

The guy with good stuff can just laugh it off and everyone still thinks he is wonderful. i.e. the ploy failed. Or they didn't even notice the other guy's attempt to ridicule Mr Nice Guy. Or it could have minor short-lasting effects dependig on his levels of Good Stuff.

Stuff is not helpful in the actual fight - it is simply a mechanic for judging other people's reaction to the characters' predicament.

Simon W
http://www.geocities.com/dogs_life2003/
http://www.geocities.com/lashingsofgingerbeer2004/

[Mark D. Eddy]

Honestly, to solve the issue I'm stuck on while retaining strict Karma, I would say you would have to hand narrative power over. The popular way to do this seems to be that the loser narrates the results. That would work as follows:

GM: Player X, what are you doing?

X: I'll.... (something nifty using Warfare)

GM: Player Y, how do you respond?

Y: I'll... (something nifty involving a Power)

GM: OK. Seeing X is higher in Warfare by a significant amount, and the Power in question applies but doesn't give enough of an edge, X wins. X, what result do you want?

X: I want... (some final result)

GM: Done. Y, how does it happen?

Y: ... (Several rounds of coolness that end with X getting what (s)he wants)

---

This needs to be spelled out ahead of time. If the players understand that winning means that they don't have control over how they win, it will make things easier. Probably not 100% smooth, but smoother than if it is completely arbitrary who gets narrative control. And it has the added bonus that players like me are much more likely to play less than top-notch characters in order to get the narrative control.

[Andrew Norris]

Hi, Tony,

Would you mind addressing how this method of play encourages Narrativism? I hear what you're saying about "we get 'who wins' out of the way quickly so people can decide how they win or lose", but I'm not really getting how that leads to Narr. I think my first take on the issue is something like what Eero was seeing, which is that it sounds like Gamism without The Gamble or Step On Up. I know that's not what you're going for, but I think it's you've seen some responses like "That sounds boring". I'm not against what you're describing so much as I really feel like I'm not getting it.

On antoher point, in the FATE game I'm running, I've found injecting Fortune (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) has been a huge help in avoiding these kinds of logjams. We've had a few situations where the players were at an impasse where they really just wanted to know how two opposing actions would work out and who the victor was, so they could get on with play. I didn't want to impose a rules-based decision in the most contentious case (because Karma-wise, it was really a push) so I just had the two players roll 2d6 and let the higher roll "win". The nice thing about this for our group was that it was clearly arbitrary (and therefore impartial), so there were no hurt feelings.

[TonyLB]

Actually, Andrew, I'm not sure it does directly encourage Narrativism.  It's not that it rewards the raising of themes and internal conflict.  But it also doesn't distract from them at all.  It minimizes the amount that the rules system and the outcomes (as such) have to be considered during play (assuming good communications about the system itself, of course).  So at best it gets the rules system out of the way, and lets the players express a Narr agenda if that's what they want.

I think this as a step in the right direction, because Amber as I've often seen it played puts character effectiveness at odds with the introduction of thematic elements.  I've seen it very actively discourage Narr play by drawing so much attention to tactical and aesthetic description that people cannot afford to put any mental energy into anything else.  Other peoples experience, naturally enough, may vary.

I'm afraid I don't understand what is meant by Gamism without the Gamble or Step on Up.  You're right that I did initially interpret that as being "that sounds boring", but I'd love to have it clarified so I could see what is really meant.  Gamism is definitely the CA that I have the least firm grasp on, so a little help in explaining your meaning would go a long way.

[Callan S.]

Err, what is the player supposed to input into the game in terms of stats? I'm not quite sure.

From what I've read, someone who swordfights better wins the swordfight. The GM decides if the NPC is better than the PC which = the GM decides the outcome of the fight.

That's cool. But why have stats? I mean, perhaps its a hobby assertion thing I'm about to spout here, but stats suggest the player can do something with them. Something tactical. Why give a player something that they can't use?

It's giving someone something that, in other games, lets you figure some tactics in terms of conflict. But in this one it doesn't, its up to the GM who wins. It's sort of like giving a friend some keys, presumably to your house. But when he comes, they don't work in the lock and you decide whether he comes in or not when you answer the door. Why give him a key that doesn't do anything?

Sounds like bad system design to me, trying to placate the expectations of gamers despite design intent (a lot like CoC). Am I seeing this wrong?

[captain_bateson]

Noon:

Whoa. Your key analogy really hits on the head how I felt as a player under this system (though I didn't know I was under this system). I know that it isn't Tony's intention for it to be that way, and I'm sure he will say that the system isn't that way, since "highest attribute wins." But it sure comes across this way to the player, or at least it did to me.

Excellent, excellent observation.

[Valamir]

One of the weakness of games that rely alot on subjective interpretation is their vulnerability to Calvinballing*.  Amber IME is especially vulnerable in this regard because its biggest weakness as a game is that it lacks a decisive IIEE structure...which makes it easy prey to Calvinballing tactics.

The various network of interrelated powers and abilities all with little snippets of rules here and there, but really no cohesive overall system for resolution (a complete IIEE package) is ripe pickings for Calvinballers.

I suspect that Tony encountered a raft of Calvinball players in his experience with Amber and developed this hard Karma approach as a way to deal with it under the assumption that if you took away all of the niggling tools such players could manipulate and just went with strait number vs number with zero tactical influence there would be nothing for the Calvinballers to play with.

When I went to copy the discussion of "Calvinball" from the essay for reference here, I found the last paragraph where is says "One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the players" which seems to me to be exactly what Tony was doing by refusing to discuss the grounds of his ruling.

*

Calvinball
This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it. Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along, usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious" well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character. A Calvinballer may also be adept at bugging the GM about some rules-detail often enough that a goodly percentage of the time yields a reward for it, but not often enough to tip everyone else off to what's going on.

The big trick of Calvinball is pretending to be still committed to the Exploration. That makes it especially well-suited to disrupting Simulationist play from the older traditions, because the other players' commitment to the integrity of the Dream can be co-opted into one's Calvinball strategy, exploiting the others' willingness to enter into the rules-debate in hopes of a compromise, which of course is not forthcoming. Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.

One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the players in some kind of laughably-secure "GM book" or "GM section," as well as to enforce the ideal of Transparency. The other, more common solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during play.

[Andrew Norris]

Okay, I think I'm getting a handle on it. Let's say Tony wants his game to not so much be about the conflicts that Amberites get into, and more about the ramifications of the choices the characters make (with these conflicts as context). So, say, if there's an attack from unstoppable creatures from beyond Shadow, they really are going to be unstoppable, and what gets played out is more about the character's reactions.

If you go heavy Drama (which is what the core mechanics and Eric's examples in the Amber book suggest) then players might very well start scheming up some huge, convoluted plan to stop the Unstoppable Menace. Whereas if you go pure Karma, that won't happen. I think I can understand how that might work.

There's two things I see as a problem, both of which may have already been addressed:

1) "Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you." Taking away Drama from conflict resolution is a pretty big drift in Amber. Between the examples in the book, and the "You may already be playing diceless" essay Eric wrote for the Forge, it's easy to see that Amber comes out of the box with a really heavy Drama component. Now Tony may have been exceedingly clear to his players about how he was drifting, but I've been there, and when a GM proposes house rules that change a system that dramatically, a lot of the times the players nod, go "uh huh, okay" and don't actually hear you. (I've had this happen a lot in other systems.)

2) You never get rid of all the Drama. One way to sidestep the straight Karma resolution is to manage to change the battle from one attribute to another. But how that's done is through Drama resolution, isn't it? I'd think it has to be involved somehow, because if it's also Karma (say, if you're running at me with a sword, and I have your Trump out and try to attack you psychically, it's Psyche vs. Warfare) then there's no clear way to adjudicate what happens. (Is it relative ranks, or points spent? etc.)

I guess point #2 is what I meant by, to rephrase it, "empty Gamism". I've seen a fair number of Amber players who really enjoy coming up with crafty, risky plans to win out when they're underdogs. (Arguably they're just following the way Zelazny wrote Corwin.) If what they really dig about Amber is Stepping on Up by coming up with the best plan, then play in this  system is going to seem hollow to them. After all, even having the best stats doesn't really matter all that much, since the GM can give an enemy arbitrarily high stats.

I'm leaning towards what Noon's saying -- ultimately it feels like you've drifted so far away from the design goals of Amber that it's not really the same game. (Again, Eric's essay on this site is illuminating, in that it makes it sound as though he came up with the "diceless system" because the only thing his character had going for him was Drama.) Nobody's going to tar and feather you for changing the game, but as you're seeing, the disconnect with player's expectations (even though you told them what to expect) is big.

[captain_bateson]

Whoa... Nice pick up, Val. That's exactly what Tony has done!

Actually, though Amber is my favorite game, one thing that I have found extremely taxing about the game is that a lot of players and GMs think that Calvinballing is actually inherent in the game and encouraged by it. It would be no wonder if Tony has run into a lot of Calvinballers in his travels through the Amber system.

The funny thing is, in my experience, most of the Calvinballing happens with powers. Player: "I use my Advanced Pattern to [do something not even vaguely alluded to in the rules under Advanced Pattern]." GM: "How are you doing that?" Player: "Well, I... [meaningless technobabble]." GM: "Okay."

I hate that! I refuse to engage in power technobabble (Calvinballing) anymore either as a GM or player. I don't know what about the Amber rules makes people think the game should work that way (certainly the rules don't say to do anything like that!), but somehow, it's become normal in the Amber community.

But, what I find so terribly interesting is that Tony seems to be really concerned with preventing Calvinballing or technobabble with regards to physical conflict, which in my experience is not where the problem is. I find that players run at the mouth and try to make up new abilities when dealing with powers much, much, much more than in physical conflicts. I'm a martial artist and swordsman, and even I rarely get more technical then, "I throw a chair at him and swing at his knee." I wonder what happened to make Tony so worried about Calvinballing in physical combat and not with powers.

[Valamir]

Well first let me caveat the inherent risk of speculating about what Tony was or wasn't concerned with.

Second let me also note, Capt, that I think if you shift to Tony's perspective that what you were doing quite easily could have set off Tony's "Calvinball" warning flags.  Not having been there I obviously can't say how much Calvinballing you were or weren't doing, but from what's been shared in the various threads here, I can say that for someone predisposed to be wary of such play your actions could be interpreted as suspicious.


Now on to your first issue about why its somewhat standard in the Amber community.

I think Amber the game has two weaknesses.  One is that I think it was a design mistake to include the ability to have non Amberites as playable characters.  This leads to very "splat" based play where you have your token pattern guy, your token trump guy, your token chaos guy, and your token wierd/sorcerer guy from shadow all getting together in a party to mix it up.  I think this sort of thing really misses the boat on what Amber is best at, and what, to me, the novels are about.  The novels are about a giant dysfunctional extended family.  Imagine Dallas if JR Ewing had god like powers.

The point being, that despite all of the rivalries and plots there's still those family ties and family history that you can never escape.  I think alot of that gets lost with mixed character play.

This isn't directly material to your issue, but since you had mixed play in your group, I thought I'd mention it, because I've seen this be a contributing factor in other Amber games that didn't work so well.


The bigger weakness in Amber the game is, as I said, the lack of IIEE structure...which boils down to "who says what, when do they get to say it, when does it actually happen, and who decides what the effects are".

What this means is when 1 party says "I'm activating my power", and another says "ok, I'm going to attack him"...what happens?

Does the power go off before the attack because that player declared it first?  Does the attack go off before the power because the rules have stated unequivocably that physical attacks are always resolved before powers?  Could the attack go off before the power or not depending on how long the power takes and how much of a head start the power activation had?  If so, who adjucates this in the absence of a clear round or phase or action point structure.  Do attribute differences effect how quickly things happen? If so which attributes and to what extent?  Could someone with a slow power but a really high Psyche get their power off before someone with a fast physical attack but a really low Psyche on the grounds of hesitation due to being outwitted?

Now my memory of Amber rules is about 10years dated, but my recollection is that few if any of these issues have any kind of hard and fast rule or rules structure to aid in their resolution.  All (or most) of them rely almost exclusively on the GM's judgement with naught but some examples and a hand full of rules and concepts for assistance.

This is also why you see so many "force field" effects in Amber play.  Given that the GM has wide latitude to rule on these, he has the ability to play favorites.  Also, I'd suggest that even when his decisions are based on a completely reasonable analysis and an internally consistant application, that players who wind up on the losing end of those rulings will have a tendency to see "force fields" even when there are none.

Such a situation is a Calvinballer's dream playground because all one has to do then is be able to assemble a plausible sounding explanation and by using personal charisma, petulant bullying tactics, plaitive pleadings, or just plain old chuztpah (or some combination of the above) a player can wind up having undue influence on the GMs rulings.  Because the GM doesn't have a structure of precedent to fall back on such situations typically resolve as personal on personal conflict with both sides able to find "rules support" for their case.

Calvinballing can happen in any game...but Amber is particularly prone to it because of the weakness in its IIEE.  D&D is also prone to it for nearly the opposite reason...because there are so many rules that are exceptions and special cases.


I'll conclude by saying that my experience is different than yours in that I've seen Calvinballing used with physical conflict as much or even more than with powers (largely because my play relied less on powers to differentiate characters so there was less opportunity for it).

How often have you seen the guy with high warfare try to use his high warefare for EVERYTHING.  "Of course I notice that...part of being a combat guru is situational awareness and alertness...I see all, notice all"..."Of course I can run that marathon using my Warfare score, as a trained soldier how many miles of roadwork must I have done carrying a full load"..."Of course I can stay up for 3 days straight and use my Warfare instead of Constitution...as a trained soldier I spent many hours on sentry duty"..."Of course I can use my Warfare to repair that truck, soldiers often have to jury rig machines in the field and pick up this or that ability".

One could repeat the exercise with each of the attributes.  This is actually encouraged in the (otherwise humorous) section in character creation where the GM carefully explains which is "the most important" attribute.

[TonyLB]

Andrew:

On the first ("Can't hear you!") issue... yeah.  I underestimated how thoroughly and repeatedly I needed to say the same thing.  I think, interestingly enough, that the argument that resulted has helped the remaining folks in the game (myself included) to really open their ears to each other.  It's an ill wind, etc., etc.

On the second ("Empty Gamism") issue, I think I get you, but I'm not totally sure, and I'll tell you why.  If I've got you wrong, hopefully you'll correct me.

You point out (quite rightly) that if one puts forth a Strict Karma system, and the immediate response of the players is "Okay, let's figure out how we'll reverse these decisions when they're not in our favor" then you've just pushed the calvinballing one trivial battleground further into the future.

But that's only one possible player response, isn't it?  At least in my game, people seem to have responded by saying "Okay, let's figure out how our player input is still vital to the story when it can no longer sway these particular decisions".

I guess what I'm asking is, do you think it's a Gamist system however the players respond to it, or only if they choose to interpret it from a Gamist point-of-view?

[captain_bateson]

Val:

Quite correct about assuming we know what Tony was thinking. Tony, please allow me to apologize in advance if I have inaccurately protrayed your motivations in this thread.

Second off, at the risk of getting my hand slapped, and not to start a whole discussion, I do need to say this: I was not Calvinballing.

Calvinball: making up the rules as you go along, usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious" well-established interpretations.

I did not do that. I did, at one point, mention that I had never seen a ruling like that one in all my years of playing Amber, but that was in the context of trying to get an explanation for a ruling I did not understand on any level. But I did not, as far as I can recall (since I can't see the messages anymore) ever rely on "it's always done this way," or, "everyone knows it's like this," or, "it's so obvious!"

The definition of Calvinballing is actually kind of dangerous, because it makes the line between someone genuinely and earnestly disputing a rule interpretation, and someone Calvinballing a question of what's going on in the player's mind, which is impossible to prove one way or the other.

In any case, I think the fact that my first post disputing the ruling basically said, "Uh, I don't see how this ruling makes sense or is fair. I would like to ask you to reconsider it." That's the response of someone genuinely shocked at the ruling. I only got more specific about my complaints as I was trying to get Tony to explain the ruling. (I thought that, by being very specific about exactly what was bothering me and then requesting that Tony answer some specific questions I had about the ruling, he would be more likely to give me a response. I was wrong). I never made anything up. At the beginning, I didn't even spell out what I thought was wrong with the ruling because I thought it was so obvious I didn't even need to say it (which is different than presenting an interpretation and then claiming that it is an "obvious, well-established interpretation).

In subsequent messages, I quoted the specific rules, with page numbers, that I thought had been violated. But that was so that Tony could offer me his interpretation.

If Tony's Calvinballing detector (how many site-specific things do you have to know to parse "If X's Calvinballing detector...?") went off, then he really needs to consider whether Amber is the game for him to GM. Especially if asking, "How come the other guy got to bring up the Logrus and Shape Shift before I could throw a chair?" sets it off. Because questions about the specifics of events happen a lot, given, as you note, the lack of any kind of mechanics for that kind of stuff.

I'm not cheesed off about this or anything. But I don't do stuff like that, and I don't want it even implied that I might.

Now, onward!

Actually, I kind of agree with you on the "mixed characters in Amber" issue. Especially with regards to weirdo characters from out of Shadow who can kick all the Amberite PC's asses because he or she didn't have to spend 50 points on Pattern. I tend not to like that kind of stuff either.

lack of IIEE structure

Hmm. Interesting. I guess that is kind of the problem Tony and I had. Though, to be fair, this is (I believe) the first time I've run into this problem in my Amber career. But, on the other hand, except for the question of who goes first when two people go, "I do this!" "No, I do this!", I think most of that is covered in the rules by discussions about how long it takes to do things. So, I'm unsure at this point if the one time I've encountered this problem was really due to lack of IIEE structure or just differing interpretations thereof.

Such a situation is a Calvinballer's dream playground because all one has to do then is be able to assemble a plausible sounding explanation and by using personal charisma, petulant bullying tactics, plaitive pleadings, or just plain old chuztpah (or some combination of the above) a player can wind up having undue influence on the GMs rulings.

Agreed.

Because the GM doesn't have a structure of precedent to fall back on such situations typically resolve as personal on personal conflict with both sides able to find "rules support" for their case.

Hmm. I haven't seen that as the problem in most cases of trouble with the conflict resolution system. Also, I think that this can actually happen in any game. I have sat through many, many more arguments that lasted much, much longer when playing other games than Amber. And, in those cases, both sides seemed to be able to find "rules support" for his or her case. No, this one I don't think I believe, or at least don't believe that Amber is any worse than any other game in this respect.

Re: Calvinballing with Warfare, well, I have seen stuff like that, though not in a long, long time. Of course, I'm not clear when it is and isn't Calvinballing, because Wujick gave Warfare such godlike abilities in the rulebook that I think a lot of players genuinely believe Warfare does/should do those things. And, in my experience, Warfare Calvinballing succeeds WAY less often than power Calvinballing. Power Calvinballing almost always succeeds. Warfare Calvinballing rarely does. But you and I may have played in different venues. But I remember, the first few AmberCons, getting very, very frustrated at the fact that players with power characters could talk themselves into accomplishing anything they wanted, and Warfare characters were useless. To a large extent, I think a lot of Amber games are still GMed like that: it's all about powers. I actually worry about playing a Warfare character in a campaign with a GM I don't know because it might be a "power game" and I may end up useless (I think that's happening to me right now in a game, in fact). But I've never seen a "Warfare" game where powers were ineffective and Warfare ruled. I've seen balanced games, but never that.

[Callan S.]

The definition of Calvinballing is actually kind of dangerous, because it makes the line between someone genuinely and earnestly disputing a rule interpretation, and someone Calvinballing a question of what's going on in the player's mind, which is impossible to prove one way or the other.

But that's the point, calvinballing involves camoflaging the whole thing as something reasonable for a player to contribute and quite okay. If calvinballing was dog ball obvious, no one would/could do it.

It's hard or impossible to tell them apart. But dangerous or not, the practical needs of running a enjoyable session require some evaluation to be made at some point. Does this lead to missdiagnosis? Yep, and really I think a few posters are suggesting the calvinballing detector was set to overly sensitive and miss-diagnosis was made (I think the other posters are, anyway). I mean, your extensive defence of how you weren't calvinballing actually starts to twitch the needle on my own calvinball detector (remember, it camoflages itself as being reasonable). No, I'm not making a conclusion about you, I'm saying if you were defending yourself the same way in the game/after the game and Tony was already leery about calvinballing because of the system....well, its a car accident waiting to happen, IMO.

Though really I can't figure out why your character couldn't run out of the bar, throwing a chair as a distraction. Sure, it'd be more boring than what was likely to happen (I doubt it was all done to kill your PC...if that's even possible in amber), but basically the system used encouraged you to run off, so it was system Vs what the GM wanted.

[captain_bateson]

Noon,

See, this is the slippery slope I'm talking about with this whole Calvinballing idea. A GM makes what the player considers a questionable ruling. The player, in good faith, therefore explains to the GM what he or she thinks is wrong with the ruling. "Uh-oh!" the GM thinks, "How can I get out of explaining this ruling? I've got it! Accuse the player of Calvinballing!"

Then, if the player attempts to explain why his or her complaints are valid and should at least be addressed, the GM calls the player's defense Calvinballing too (which you seem close to doing in my case)! Then, the GM never, ever has to take any accountability for his or her rulings ever! Awesome! If the player says, "No, I'm being reasonable," you throw at him or her:

remember, it [Calvinballing] camoflages itself as being reasonable

and you've dealt with that. Whew! And, for a minute, the GM actually almost had to respond to feedback. Glad we dodged that bullet!

The way it seems this Calvinballing thing is defined opens up to all kinds of abuses. It's like the McCarthy hearings in the '50s: "Why are you questioning the authority of HUAC? That's what a communist would do!" Then, after the witness explains why questioning the HUAC doesn't make him or her a communist, McCarthy says: "Ah, only a communist would try to make an argument like that!"

I mean, I know Calvinballing happens. But, on the other hand, if it's all you're looking for, then you will always find it, just like the McCarthyists found communists everywhere.

If you look at it the way I think you and Tony are, then it's just a witch-hunt. Why even GM, then, if your Calvinballing detector goes off every time someone questions a ruling, since anyone Calvinballing is implicity acting in bad faith? You're essentially saying that everyone who asks a question about the game is acting in bad faith. Why play with a bunch of people who you think act in bad faith all the time?

I think the benefit of the doubt has to be with the player unless they have a track record of Calvinballing in the past. Otherwise, the players will fear asking questions or challenging rulings for worry of being labeled a Calvinballer, and the GM can paint anyone who dares ask a question or challenge a ruling as a Calvinballer and thus escape any accountability to his or her players.

Oh, but wait. I just put together a reasonable argument. Communism-- I mean, Calvinballing cloaks itself in the guise of reason, doesn't it? So I must be a communist-- I mean, Calvinballer, because only a communist-- I mean, Calvinballer would possibly make such an argument.

Very dangerous indeed. It's the same kind of thinking that gets people killed when it's not hobby or roleplaying related.

With regards to the chair, I was never given an option to rewind and run instead of attacking once I found out that the combat system was very different than I was expecting. I doubt Tony would have given me such an option. He doesn't like rewinding or letting players out of the consequences of their actions (which I generally agree with). But it might have been a solution.

[xiombarg]

See, this is the slippery slope I'm talking about with this whole Calvinballing idea. A GM makes what the player considers a questionable ruling. The player, in good faith, therefore explains to the GM what he or she thinks is wrong with the ruling. "Uh-oh!" the GM thinks, "How can I get out of explaining this ruling? I've got it! Accuse the player of Calvinballing!"

Um, okay, so the idea of Calvinballing is bad because a GM might use it to Calvinball? Ugh, that hurts my head.

Look, Captain, we all know you think you were wronged, but the fact of the matter is that this sort of thing (Calvinballing) happens and people have a right to be concerned about it and to watch out for it. Your argument amounts to saying that one shouldn't have a term for murder because someone might try to invalidate someone acting in self-defense by accusing them of murder. Sure, yeah, a bad lawyer might accuse an innocent man of murder, but that doesn't mean trying to stop murder is a slippery slope, or wrong.

And what the heck does this have to do with strict Karma adjudication of Amber, which is what I thought this thread was about?