Topic: Star Trek: The Andy Chronicles

[Scottish Andy]

Hey Guv, thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you liked it, but I was kinda wondering what you thought of the moral dimension. A--to this point--honourable Starfleet officer commits a cold-bludded murder as the lesser of two evils. Any comment on that, and how it affects his oath and continued service in the Fleet? (And that question is directed to anyone who reads this.)

Larry, like I said it's a while since I've looked at this, so I tidied up what I had a little more. Any differences sould be minor editing ones. Unless a certain other Beta Reader made suggestions I took onboard after I sent it to you...

That said, what do you think of it, Larry?

[Governor Ronjar]

The moral problem is one that every good officer would encounter eventually on some level. From mishandling files to possibly cover up a minor infraction to what You're dealing with here. Certainly yours is the more severe of the two, and bears even more thought and personal battle on the subject, thus Andrew's long pause before acting...

Ford might have gone through a similar instance in his own career, or even before (though he joined the Fleet at 17...). By the time he first takes command of Endeavour in '87, he is already 50 years old. He is 56 by the time of these stories. He's long since set his methods and has no real moral qualms about what he does for 'the greater good'. He doesn't kid himself about it though. He knows he's not living up to the new standards of humanity. But he doesn't lose any sleep over it either.

I believe Andrew WILL lose sleep over his action, because he's a better and more upright kind of person than Ford and Thomas. Rodenberry would roll over in his grave (or orbiting capsule) if a series were ever based on Ford and Thomas. Though I think ratings on TV would be better than ENT's run...

The question I put to you, though, can Brown get past this thing himself without it affecting everything he does in the future? Will his future decisions be marred by what he did in this story, or can he still convince himself to remain on the moral high ground? And how will he deal with the emotions there in?

Challenging stuff to write on, eh?

Them's my thoughts.

--thu guv!

[Scottish Andy]

Excellent, Guv! This was exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for! (hint, hint)

Yes, my other Beta reader said there had better be consequences to this, and believe me there will be, but I just haven't got that far in the planning stages yet. Yet another Beta reader put forward something I'd forgotten completely about: Does he really think he can get away with it? How will he keep this from the standard (yearly?) Fleet psych profiling. Not only that, how does he keep his guilt and remorse from the telepathic species he serves with, especially while asleep?

Well, I have something from V.E. Mitchell's pretty good book 'Enemy Unseen'. S/He gives several paragraphs of Federation code on page 152 about a Federation citizen's mental privacy rights, started off with the line

Federation Code, Section 175, Subsection B (Mental Privacy): The right to mental privacy is an inalienable right of all Federation citizens and shall not be abrogated without due process of law.

By which I take it to mean telepaths are not allowed to scan people without a warrant. Also, unguarded thoughts in dreams are not admissable as evidence.

I'm going out now, so I'll complete this thought (if necessary) when I come back.

[Commander La'ra]

Yes, my other Beta reader said there had better be consequences to this, and believe me there will be, but I just haven't got that far in the planning stages yet. Yet another Beta reader put forward something I'd forgotten completely about: Does he really think he can get away with it? How will he keep this from the standard (yearly?) Fleet psych profiling. Not only that, how does he keep his guilt and remorse from the telepathic species he serves with, especially while asleep?

I detect the style of a certain 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' fella in a couple of those comments.

Naturally, there should be consequences for any actions taken by any character.  I'm sure you  have some worked out.  Please don't, however, take that other beta reader's (if it's who I'm thinking it is) ideas of morality too closely to heart.  While Andy is committing murder in this vignette, the circumstances that lead him to it are far from simple and his choice, in the end, is no more 'wrong' than allowing his victim to live considering what results will probably transpire from the fellow's continued existence.

I sense that the Beta Reader who demanded consequences was applying his own ideas about morality to his demands for consequences, but his views on such subjects can be a tad simplistic...you and I both know your characters are more complex, more real than his, and I deeply hope you continue to allow them to face complex decisions without the rigid and almost farcical version of 'good guy/bad guy' that he might suggest you employ.

Furthermore, people get away with murder all the time.  It's a sad fact, but it's true, and it's probably still true in the 23rd century, even with telepaths and other such running around.  The beta reader we're talking about here tends to make superheroes out of Vulcans and other such mind-strong races, though, whereas you do not, so I'm not at all worried that you'll emulate his suggestions in that vein.

I believe I also remarked on Andy's methods of covering up the crime...and either I misread the original version or some of the suggestions you implemented made me buy it more.  If you want, I'll even give it a reread over the next couple of days and give you a more extensive review.

[CaptJosh]

Fascinating reading. My main RP character from my old IRC sim group days would likely have strangled that creep with his bare hands then fed him to a disposal unit without worrying about it. Just taking out the trash, after all. My Kzin self...I guess K'thaaara would probably torture the cretin slowly over time, making a meal sof him pieces at a time, leaving him alive as long as possible.

Brown's moral dillemma fits whatg I've read of him, as does the time he takes to finally kill the creature who threatened his friend.

Technical nit: The only time I've seen a Type 1 phaser vape someone was in "The City on the Edge of Forever" when McCoy's weapon killed that bum. But I believe the bum inadvertently overloaded it. I'm pretty sure only type 2 and above have a Kill/Disrupt setting that doesn't leave a body.

[Commander La'ra]

We saw a hand phaser vaporize the Capellan dude in 'Friday's Child'.

The same episode also gave us the immortal line 'I'm a doctor, not an escalator'.

[Grim Reaper]

I'm loving this Andy. You know it feels a bit more star wars as star trek to me. If you discount the "holy" jedi, the SW universe has the same practical outlook on life.
Weighing actions and consequences, feels more real than the idealistic Trek universe.

And I think the talk was necessary. If only to justiy it for himself. And if he was evil, he wouldn't have done that.

[CaptJosh]

A type 1? I'll have to watch that ep again...

[Scottish Andy]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the feedback, and keep it coming if you have anything to add.

The question I put to you, though, can Brown get past this thing himself without it affecting everything he does in the future? Will his future decisions be marred by what he did in this story, or can he still convince himself to remain on the moral high ground? And how will he deal with the emotions there in?

Challenging stuff to write on, eh?

That is exactly what I was aiming for, Guv. Since he's based on me, I don't think Andrew will convince himself he's still on the moral high ground and as a result it will undermine him in any moral situations he has to decide on. He will not leave Starfleet because: 1) that would prematurely kill my storyline, and 2) he's too selfish to give up his career when he hasn't been caught. He's not going to turn into a rampaging vigilante now. In fact, I think he's going to be even more careful as a result. Plus, he has a Vulcan wife by this point, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there. Will she see it as logical, if unethical? Will she find it morally repulsive and leave him? Who knows? This is me thinking about it for the first time, but oooh! the writing posibilities! *grin*

Larry, I would definitely like a "Larry's Patented Big-Ass Review" please. Re-read and digest. Corrolate opinions and report. 
As for my other Beta reader, I respect his opinion precisely because he is who he is. I don't agree with maybe 1/3 to 2/3rds of what he says, depending on the topic, but an opposing viewpoint makes me think harder about the 'why's of it all. Balance must be maintained. You're my Spock, he's my McCoy. *grin*

...his choice, in the end, is no more 'wrong' than allowing his victim to live...

Now, here, you are wrong. He killed someone, which is always wrong if you believe there have to be even some absolute morals. However, this is a world of shades of grey, and the other Beta reader sees it in black and white. Andrew knows this is wrong. That is the whole point of the Chronicle. He knows doing this will damn him, but he's also absolutely convinced (at the end) that his choice is the lesser of two evils. The least amount of harm will be done by taking this action, but since I believe in karma what goes around comes around. Maybe he had it coming and Andrew was the Instrument of Karmic Justice, or maybe Karma will repay Andrew later for taking a life. Who knows?

Josh, in 'A Private Little War' Kirk and McCoy beam down as natives, where Kirk is bitten my a Mugato. McCoy atomises it, I think. Later, Tyree's wife Nona sees McCoy heating rocks with the Type-I to combat Kirk's fever. Later Nona and Kirk are attacked by another Mugato. A dazed Kirk atomises it with his concealed Type-I phaser, but she clobbers him to steal the phaser.

Also, as Larry says, in 'Friday's Child', the Klingon negotiating for mining rights beside Kirk & Co. steals one of the Starfleeter's Type-Is. Maab, having taken over in a bloody coup, comes to favour the Federation and in the endgame, Maab confronts the Klingon, who atomises him with the Type-I.

Grim, I have no doubt it feels less like Trek. The idea is actually from the Honour Harrington series by David Weber.

And I think the talk was necessary. If only to justiy it for himself. And if he was evil, he wouldn't have done that.

My point exactly. I always maintain that sometimes good people have to do bad things. As long as they know it's bad and struggle with it, they are still essentially good people. However, the society they are part of cannot, must not condone their actions, because otherwise that society has just invalidated it's principles. The society--and by definition, it's rulers/government--cannot be aware of, authorise or condone such activities, as if they think it an acceptable option, they are violating the principles they are trying to defend.

This does not, however, stop secret organisations from doing that society's dirty work. It has to be taken for granted though that such secret organisations and members thereof should be punished when caught.

It's a dichotomy I'm not comfortable with, but that's reality for you. Sometimes, to win, you need to get your hands dirty, and it looks as if that will be the case for the foreseeable future, if not for all time.

[Commander La'ra]

Now, here, you are wrong. He killed someone, which is always wrong if you believe there have to be even some absolute morals.

Don't think you quite took my meaning.  Of course committing cold-blooded murder is wrong...but...allowing what would probably happen if the man lived is just as wrong as killing him, especially since then the 'bad stuff' would likely be happening to those who didn't deserve it or could not defend themselves from it.

To me, at least, you're responsible for what you allow as much as for what you do.  Andy was placed in a situation where what would happen was more repulsive to him than killing his victim.  I'm not saying that's right, but I am saying that, if he's a moral creature...he had to do something.

[Governor Ronjar]

Yes indeed.

By allowing a crime to be commited, you are abetting it. Knowing your inaction will lead to said crime, is the same. To me, it's more detestable than comitting the said 'murder' in this piece.

--thu guv!

[CaptJosh]

It's a classic case of having to chose between two evils. He chose the lesser. That...creature (he doesn't qualify as a person) could not be allowed to live.

[Scottish Andy]

To me, at least, you're responsible for what you allow as much as for what you do.  Andy was placed in a situation where what would happen was more repulsive to him than killing his victim.  I'm not saying that's right, but I am saying that, if he's a moral creature...he had to do something.

And tihs is what I agree with entirely. You've summed it perfectly, Larry, the nail right on the head. Inaction can be and frequently is worse than the wrong action.

I read a book--I can't remember which one--that gave me this concept: Going out and making something happen, doing something about a distant or small problem, is usually better than waiting on that thing or problem coming to you in its own time.
Couple that with the above and you've got t he perfect motivation.

By allowing a crime to be commited, you are abetting it. Knowing your inaction will lead to said crime, is the same. To me, it's more detestable than comitting the said 'murder' in this piece.

I agree with this, but you're missing a vital point, Guv, and in doing so you've inverted the moral of the story.
He's not reviling himself for abetting the future crimes of the slime if he lets him go to trial.
He is fighting with his conscience, which knows that killing is wrong, plan and simple. He is fighting with the concept that, despite the damage to him and his morals, what it will do to his dreams at night and the eyes he'll see in the mirror each morning, to do anything else will end up ruining his life and the lives of everyone he cares about.
He is fighting with the concept that violating his morals and his oath is the only way to  prevent whole worlds of hurt, and that killing another truly is the lesser of two evils--in his world. His world, which will--with this act--become detached from the absolute morals to which he has held all his life.
In naval terms, his sea anchor is about to be lost in a hurricane. Will he ever find a peaceful shore again? Can he forge a new anchor?

Just food for thought.

And guys, I am literally thrilled with this discussion. If I haven't convinced you, or you want to convince me of a different viewpoint, keep it coming.

[Jaeih t`Radaik]

This was a truly excellent piece, Andy. I honestly don't know what I would have done in that position. I know what I'd like to have done, but I don't know if I could have done it.

Likely, I'd have let him go. Not out of moral strength, but a lack of it. I'd have been too scared to kill him. A future worry is just that--nebulous, may not happen, even if the chance is very slight. I wouldn't be able to go through with killing him, cause that's immediate. Here and now.

Maybe you could write two elements of that? Like the film 'Sliding Doors'. His life splits into two timelines after that, each dealing with the consequences. probability theory suggests when each outcome is equally likely, all are implemented in alternate universes. You could do that, because he is just that conflicted.

Food for thought.

[Governor Ronjar]

I agree with this, but you're missing a vital point, Guv, and in doing so you've inverted the moral of the story.

I indeed have highly inverted morals, my friend. Mine are more Old Testiment. Eye for an eye, Tooth for Tooth and such.

But the point is not missed, I assure you. I ramble on, and tend to go on past my original point. I am very interested to see how Andrew copes with all that has, and WILL happen.

Looking forward to much, much more.

--thu guv!

[Andromeda]

Your alterego in the Federation is well on the way to creating a universe in which he cannot exist.

[Scottish Andy]

Not quite sure I catch your full meaning there, Rommie. Care to expound?

[Andromeda]

Okay.

You make choices.  As you make the choices, it affects the things around you such as how others react to you, where you end up in life, how you feel about yourself, and how you feel about other things and people.

You can become the kind of person who can live with the choices you make, you can wrestle with justifying them to yourself, or you can try to be as you were before you made the choices.  In the first instance, you change and who you were before you made that choice no longer exists.  In the second instance you spend a lot of time tearing yourself up and can get a result anything from insane to highly conflicted or suicide.  In the last case, you're lying.  So you exist internally in a world that no longer exists externally.

How's that? 

[Scottish Andy]

Deep. 

[Andromeda]

I'm a real "Dune" philosopher.

In Dune Messiah, Skytale, the Face Dancer, tells the Reverend Mother that the Bene Tlielex had their own Kwisatch Haderach.  He elaborates that they got rid of him by creating a universe that he couldn't live in.  When the Spacing Guild Navigator doesn't understand, the Reverend Mother explains "he killed himself."