I say it's less a matter of life vs machine, then it is "Innocence."

Killing a battledroid that is following orders to subjugate a planet gets no more conflict than killing a stormtrooper under similar circomstances. Luke didnt turn to the dark side for killing several million imperials that were just doing their jobs when he took out the death star.

Torture and death bring about pain, fear and suffering- and so these actions are on the dark path. If a droid is capable of feeling something resembling these emotions, evoking them can cause conflict.

Obviously, droids are considered by the galaxy at large to be non-sentient (although widely regarded as having sapience). The problem I see when killing droids is the slippery slope formed by lack of restraint . Even if you're not "murdering" sentient beings, you still run the risk of forming the habits of aggression, recklessness, and even arrogance and overconfidence. All these things lead close to the Dark Side, and those who stray too far often don't realize how far they've gone until it's too late.

Couple of examples from TCW:

1. Nahdar Vebb, the Mon Calamari Jedi Knight, is reprimanded by his old master Kit Fisto for forgetting "restraint" when fighting the droids. He makes the excuse that he got "carried away," but then gives into his hatred in the end, before he was killed.

2. Pong Krell, the Besalisk Jedi Master. He fell to the Dark Side as a result of the war and a lust for more power. He was one of the most unrestrained Jedi I've ever seen depicted, and is just another example of the slippery slope. The attitude that he had towards the Clones was not unlike the attitude that others exhibit towards droids, and so IMO the effects of desensitization are plain to see in his downward spiral. Plus, two double-bladed lightsabers? Talk about aggression

Plus, two double-bladed lightsabers? Talk about aggression

That Linked 4, though...

Plus, two double-bladed lightsabers? Talk about aggression

That Linked 4, though...

Linked 3. (Main attack + 3 other Blades)

5 blades would be Linked 4.

Plus, two double-bladed lightsabers? Talk about aggression

That Linked 4, though...

Linked 3. (Main attack + 3 other Blades)

5 blades would be Linked 4.

Great, now I am imagining a 5-sided fuuma shuriken made in the fashion of a lightsaber. This must be how swordchucks were born.

Plus, two double-bladed lightsabers? Talk about aggression

That Linked 4, though...

Linked 3. (Main attack + 3 other Blades)

5 blades would be Linked 4.

Great, now I am imagining a 5-sided fuuma shuriken made in the fashion of a lightsaber. This must be how swordchucks were born.

Light-Krull, yo'. Light-Krull.

This must be how swordchucks were born.

Need I point out the Lightsaber-Chucks that were born but a few months back?

Droids tend to be sentient, so you'd receive about the same amount as if you'd killed a human individual.

STATEMENT: Any meatbag who says that a droid isn't sentient can simply apply their complaints to our meatbags-services droid, HK-47, and he shall promptly terminate-I mean, alleviate the said individual of their complaint... yes.

This must be how swordchucks were born.

Sword-Chucks were born in a moment of inane brilliance, a mere spot of darkness in the Light. That which could not work was made to function.

Need I point out the Lightsaber-Chucks that were born but a few months back?

Ah, yes. Beautiful Lightsaber-Chucks. Someone ought to stat those out.

Ah, yes. Beautiful Lightsaber-Chucks. Someone ought to stat those out.

Ah, yes. Beautiful Lightsaber-Chucks. Someone ought to stat those out.

I would but I'm to terrified off getting near them to figure out the stats.

Nonsense! They can't be that dangerous. All you need to do is get a bit close and--OH MY YODA WHAT HAPPENED TO MY ARMS?

Ah, yes. Beautiful Lightsaber-Chucks. Someone ought to stat those out.

I would but I'm to terrified off getting near them to figure out the stats.

Start with Unwieldy 5 and go from there.

Start with Unwieldy 5 and go from there.

No I don't know what that does. I don't want to know.

Castlecruncher,

There actually are something akin to 'saber-chucks. They first showed up in Star Wars Gamer #9 (on the cusp of the RCR version of SWd20) in the article for the Jedi Weapon Master prestige class, and then showed up again in the Saga Edition's Jedi Academy Sourcebook. It's called the san-ni staff, though it's really more like a three-section staff with the connecting bits being energy binders instead of chain links.

Not the most sensible of weapons, but it's not anywhere near as nonsensical as a lightwhip, particularly the "solid length of energy" variation in contrast to Lumiya's "multiple strands of metal with energy discharges" version.

Yeah, it wouldn't be too hard a stretch to stat out a san-ni-staff based on the training saber stats.

Droids are property, and destroying someone's property could definitely earn you some conflict

Droids are property, and destroying someone's property could definitely earn you some conflict

On a serious note, I would draw very little distinction between droid/organic when assigning conflict.

To me it all boils down to intent and motivation. Are the droids/stormtroopers/whatever a belligerent obstacle that needs to be overcome? Is stealth/diplomacy/whatever not an option? Am I motivated by fear/hatred or rational thought?

Lets take the scene in Ep3 where Obi-Wan and Yoda fight their way back into the Jedi Temple. They slaughtered the clone-troopers to get in. It was done because it was necessary, not because they hated or feared the clone troopers. Stealth was not an option (all those big open spaces), nor was diplomacy. I suppose they could have come up with some other circuitous plan but that would have delayed their time-critical mission. Stabbing all the troopers to death was the only option that would get the job done. No conflict.

Now, replace the clone troopers with droids in the same scene, then imagine that they went out of their way to hunt the droids down because of what they did to the temple. That is fear/hatred, so conflict is accrued.

Another interesting idea would be that, if you hunt an animal just for a "sport thing" or because want to make it suffer, its Conflict. If you are just hunting it for survival, I will not consider it Conflict. It's more a background than the fact itself (but sometimes the fact itself can be Conflict too).

On a serious note, I would draw very little distinction between droid/organic when assigning conflict.

To me it all boils down to intent and motivation. Are the droids/stormtroopers/whatever a belligerent obstacle that needs to be overcome? Is stealth/diplomacy/whatever not an option? Am I motivated by fear/hatred or rational thought?

Lets take the scene in Ep3 where Obi-Wan and Yoda fight their way back into the Jedi Temple. They slaughtered the clone-troopers to get in. It was done because it was necessary, not because they hated or feared the clone troopers. Stealth was not an option (all those big open spaces), nor was diplomacy. I suppose they could have come up with some other circuitous plan but that would have delayed their time-critical mission. Stabbing all the troopers to death was the only option that would get the job done. No conflict.

I'm not comfortable with this argument. These clones were people they had been fighting alongside not much earlier, real people. The argument that something is "necessary" has been used to excuse a lot of terrible behaviour. Means justifying the ends is usually flawed.

What, Palpatine was still in the building and not dead? I'm picturing that in some hypothetical heavenly court:

"Why did you kill all those people?"

"Well, they were in our way. And, well, arresting someone is far more important than that they all lived. Um, obviously".

I'm not comfortable with this argument. These clones were people they had been fighting alongside not much earlier, real people. The argument that something is "necessary" has been used to excuse a lot of terrible behaviour. Means justifying the ends is usually flawed.What, Palpatine was still in the building and not dead? I'm picturing that in some hypothetical heavenly court:"Why did you kill all those people?""Well, they were in our way. And, well, arresting someone is far more important than that they all lived. Um, obviously".

It wasn't a matter of necessity. It was a matter of self defense. They didn't sneak in and assassinate the clones; they had been engaged by the clones in combat and had no other choice but to use lethal force. They didn't go over the top, but they did what they had to do against people that were doing their darnedest to murder them.

Self defense + self control = no conflict.

I'm not comfortable with this argument. These clones were people they had been fighting alongside not much earlier, real people. The argument that something is "necessary" has been used to excuse a lot of terrible behaviour. Means justifying the ends is usually flawed.What, Palpatine was still in the building and not dead? I'm picturing that in some hypothetical heavenly court:"Why did you kill all those people?""Well, they were in our way. And, well, arresting someone is far more important than that they all lived. Um, obviously".

It wasn't a matter of necessity. It was a matter of self defense. They didn't sneak in and assassinate the clones; they had been engaged by the clones in combat and had no other choice but to use lethal force. They didn't go over the top, but they did what they had to do against people that were doing their darnedest to murder them.

Self defense + self control = no conflict.

I don't remember it, but weren't the clones guarding the building and the Jedi were specifically going in there after the Chancellor? If that's so, then I don't think you can claim self-defence when charging into an occupied area armed - you clearly forced such a situation. But if I'm wrong, then that doesn't stand. I'm just going off vague memories.

Droids can be reassembled (ala. 3P0 in ESB) so "death" means something different for them.

Yep, but they can loose their memories, so "death" will be irreversible

**** Antilles! XD

I'm not comfortable with this argument. These clones were people they had been fighting alongside not much earlier, real people. The argument that something is "necessary" has been used to excuse a lot of terrible behaviour. Means justifying the ends is usually flawed.What, Palpatine was still in the building and not dead? I'm picturing that in some hypothetical heavenly court:"Why did you kill all those people?""Well, they were in our way. And, well, arresting someone is far more important than that they all lived. Um, obviously".

It wasn't a matter of necessity. It was a matter of self defense. They didn't sneak in and assassinate the clones; they had been engaged by the clones in combat and had no other choice but to use lethal force. They didn't go over the top, but they did what they had to do against people that were doing their darnedest to murder them.

Self defense + self control = no conflict.

I don't remember it, but weren't the clones guarding the building and the Jedi were specifically going in there after the Chancellor? If that's so, then I don't think you can claim self-defence when charging into an occupied area armed - you clearly forced such a situation. But if I'm wrong, then that doesn't stand. I'm just going off vague memories.

Nope, this part of the movie Obi-Wan and Yoda are entering the temple to reprogram the "all clear, come on home" signal to "OMG, STAY AWAY!!!" signal.