So if we take Yoda's words to heart would that mean that a GM is justified in giving out conflict for any offensive use of Force powers such as using Move to throw something at a target or push them off a ledge? Yoda's words would imply that's the case, but I can't help but wonder what's the difference from pushing an opponent off a rooftop with the Force and slicing them with your lightsaber. They're dead either way. I'd welcome any opinions.

Lack of restraint, e.g. over-the-top violence, warrants Conflict. So yeah, I would say the GM is entirely justified in giving out conflict for offensive use of Force powers, situation-dependent. It shouldn't be a black and white issue, but rather an issue of restraint .

Episode 10, Season 1 of the Clone Wars ( Lair of Grievous ) contains the sad tale of Nahdar Vebb, a Jedi Knight who forgot restraint, and became overconfident.

Depends on how you define offensive. If the players accidentally get caught and the only way they can defend themselves and stay alive is by standing their ground and fighting, in a way, it's offensive since they do need to attack, but it's a last resort type of thing. And presumably they were caught doing something relatively good, otherwise they'd be incurring Conflict for trying to do something bad in the first place. If they jumped to attack however without trying to run or hide, if those are even viable options, then yes, they'd get conflict for starting a fight, but not necessarily for the attacks used in the ensuing fight (which is still dependent on the powers used and how they're used).

And there's a good deal of difference in dropping somebody to their death and just giving them a quick death. Dropping somebody off a building (or just lifting and dropping them) feeds into their fear, sadness, and is kind of a sort of torture, especially if they're falling from more considerable heights. Lightsabers, blasters, and even just chucking objects at their head can be a good way to quickly kill an attacker that doesn't give them much pain; but of course it can be painful if you're not particularly adept at your attacking method.

Self Defense isn't conflict worthy.

Neither is defending a third party.

In general, though, it's rarely a good idea to start the fight. Finish it if you must, but don't pick it.

I think maybe the principle of Yoda's statements are right, but literal interpretations of what he says can be taken lightly. I have a personal idea that maybe, just maybe , Yoda isn't, and was never intended to be, an infalliable font of truth. I'd elaborate, but that's off topic.

So if we take Yoda's words to heart would that mean that a GM is justified in giving out conflict for any offensive use of Force powers such as using Move to throw something at a target or push them off a ledge? Yoda's words would imply that's the case, but I can't help but wonder what's the difference from pushing an opponent off a rooftop with the Force and slicing them with your lightsaber. They're dead either way. I'd welcome any opinions.

Yoda certainly had few qualms blasting Darth Sidious across a room, and flinging a Senate pod at him with the Force. I'd say we can take his "never for attack" with a grain of salt.

Self Defense isn't conflict worthy.

Neither is defending a third party.

In general, though, it's rarely a good idea to start the fight. Finish it if you must, but don't pick it.

This IMO though some GMs disagree. My Jedi in a Saga campagin once got a Dark Side Point because he and a small party stumbled upon a group of Sith chasing a woman and a baby. The Sith kill the woman and one of the other PCs grabs the baby. During the fighting a Sith next to me gets knocked prone but is still armed and shows no sign of surrendering, plus has demonstrated a use of offensive Force abilities with the baby holding PC in range. So my character attacks him and he dies and the GM gives me a Dark Side point because the Sith was helpless in his opinion..

RogueCorona, that smacks of GM-gotcha. Not a fan. Sorry it happened to you!

I've unfortunately dealt with worse. I've done a lot of Star Wars mushing over the years and some of the things I've seen there are nothing compared to what I have seen around a table.

On one I saw two players get into an argument on the mushes chat system followed immediately by one of their PCs putting a death mark on the other player's PC supposedly in response to something that had happened ICly several weeks earlier.

On another my character got arrested and tried for a job he had pulled, months after the job because he had a secret warrant out for him as a result of what he had done. He was a ship designer on his way to deliver a fighter design to one of the shipwrights based on the planet when he got arrested . He gets tried and acquitted. I then find out he has been blacklisted by every shipwright in the Galactic Republic due to public outcry over his acquittal. As one of the GMs involved put it one GM put it his acquittal was viewed by the public as the Star Wars equivalent of OJ Simpson acquittal. I can understand the planet being upset but the Republic is in the middle of a full scale war, the Sith have recently taken Coruscant, and an engineer very few people have heard of getting tried for theft and murder in a planetary court draws that kind of reaction Republic wide?

On a third my character got demoted after getting into an argument with his CO's enemy alternate PC, whose player was also one of the head GMs, in a bar. We were told to make nice with them because we were on a neutral world that we wanted to keep neutral at all cost. But some other PCs were arguing with other enemy PCs and all they ever got was warnings, None none of them ever got punished despite some of them doing the same thing a couple of days later.

So if we take Yoda's words to heart would that mean that a GM is justified in giving out conflict for any offensive use of Force powers such as using Move to throw something at a target or push them off a ledge? Yoda's words would imply that's the case, but I can't help but wonder what's the difference from pushing an opponent off a rooftop with the Force and slicing them with your lightsaber. They're dead either way. I'd welcome any opinions.

Yoda certainly had few qualms blasting Darth Sidious across a room, and flinging a Senate pod at him with the Force. I'd say we can take his "never for attack" with a grain of salt.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" comes to mind here. Sometimes even the most aggressive attack is just a form of preemptive defense.

A true Jedi would tell you it wasn't an attack at all, merely a dramatic demonstration with visual aids as to why it is unwise to resist a Jedi performing his duties. And really, that table that was just Force-chucked into your face and drove you through the front window of the bar was merely a form of emphasis. It's not like anyone got their hand cut off, right?

You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. To the Jedi point of view, that wasn't an attack, or even an act of aggression. It was educational in nature. Next time, you'll know better. Now quit bleeding on the nice Jedi's robes.

GM: Uh huh. And for that line of reason you're one step closer to having your point of view be 'the jedi are evil.' And 'If you're not with me, you're my enemy!' And "You took her from me!" Seriously bro, I can picture Palpatine cackling with glee right about now.

So 'don't try to hide...from the Dark Side! Let it Flow...'

I wonder how many CIS saw the Jedi as neutral peacekeepers.

Seems the Jedi dealt in absolutes too: "if you're not with the Jedi approved Republic you're an evil enemy who must be vanquished for the good of the galaxy."

Personally, I believe Anakin/Darth Vader did bring balance to the Force by destroying the Jedi and then the Sith. If only for a brief time.

There is also a big difference between what a "Jedi" does and what the Light Side of the Force rewards.

Being a Jedi is a philosophy. Their code of conduct may tend towards light side behavior. But it isn't "The" only way. Force and Destiny is about Force users, not just Jedi.

The book doesn't say "any offensive act gives conflict." If the ideal Jedi belief suggests defense and not offense, that is a belief; not a game mechanic.

I personally think it's more a matter of your attitude towards the action than the action itself.

Sometimes you act with trully good will and screw it. You might gain some conflict, but you know you did bad and internalize the error. Then, in the bigger picture, you're fine.

It's when you start justifying your actions that it all starts. You hide what you've done, you justify it, you despise everyone else because "you think you know me" (Edge entrance theme now, please xD). Qel-Droma, Exar Kun, Anakin, they all started with this "I know better" attitude.

Following the Light's path is very, very difficult and utopic. I've always thought it was more a "try it" than a "do it", a way to keep you constantly on alert of your own actions (hence I never agreed with the "do or do not" philosophy). Like they say in sports, a true champion is not the one who never loses, it's the one who loses and comes back to the fight.

After all, this is a universe of black and white, but everytime there's too much imbalance the cosmos itself rebalances it again.

There is also a big difference between what a "Jedi" does and what the Light Side of the Force rewards.

Being a Jedi is a philosophy. Their code of conduct may tend towards light side behavior. But it isn't "The" only way. Force and Destiny is about Force users, not just Jedi.

The book doesn't say "any offensive act gives conflict." If the ideal Jedi belief suggests defense and not offense, that is a belief; not a game mechanic.

Yes, this. It's like in Mage: The Ascension; Verbena, Hermetics and Aether Sons all have different ways for magic, but magic itself can be done in any of those ways.

This is always the conversation that makes me nervous, because it's creepy Kyla philosophy.

In my opinion, there are two important aspects to remember when regarding the "Knowledge and Defense" speech. The first is the context in which the Jedi behave, the second is the fundamental nature of the Living Force.

The Force exists as a state of existence in flux. The desired state of this flux is that of balance, but like the ocean, which by nature seeks to be calm and flat (being a large body of water seeking equilibrium), it is constantly pushed upon by forces outside of it's control - the actions of sentient creatures. As sentient beings make their decisions everyday, small exchanges of good and bad begin flying back and forth, creating "Light" and "Dark" waves in this calm ocean. Most creatures (those with little or no sentient behavior - like bacteria) act on natural impulses - when they are hungry, they eat, killing if necessary. When the season comes they reproduce, and when they grow old, they die, giving what they've taken from nature back to nature - and all of this occurs beyond their scope of reason or intentional action.

Sentient beings on the other hand, don't "react" to natural impulse, but rather enforce their actions upon it. The more sentient the species, the more it acts in opposition to nature. The more self aware a species is, the harder it is for that species to "let go" and allow the Force to direct its actions. Sentient species are aware of their own legacies, and seek to prolong their lives - consuming more and taking longer to return it, and in consuming, consume more than is needed for mere survival, instead consuming to satisfaction. It isn't evil that pushes them to do this, in fact, most are completely unaware they even do it, but nonetheless, they create conflict with the natural world, and thus, churn the ocean and cause its unbalancing.

Enter the Force-Users. Force-Users have the unique ability to feel the Force, and interact with it on a fundamental level. They can sense the churning of the energy as it is plied with influences of the sentient species (themselves included). Their connection to this mystical energy field also enables them to do amazing things, but fundamentally, it is their connection to Force that is of significance - the rest is merely a byproduct.

The Jedi and Sith are two very specific orders of Force Users that came into existence as archetypal extensions of the two forces that create this churn in the energy field of the Force - The Sith seeks to create this churn, because they desire only what is best for themselves, be it Eternal Life, or an Everful Stomach, or even to ensure that their Loved Ones live beyond the scope of their lives. They seek to impress their own desires upon the universe - even if those desires are noble and virtuous - and thus cause the oceans of the Force to churn out of balance. The Jedi, on the other hand, seek to counter the efforts of the sentient when it gets out of hand. Their desire is to calm the waters as much as possible, and let the natural order do what it was meant to - and govern the workings of the universe. Just as white blood cells carry out the orders of the immune system to allow the body to operate as it was designed to, the Jedi naturally oppose those that seek to enforce their wills upon the universe and throw it out of balance.

Now, we come to what Yoda said and the Jedi's context - "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never attack." A Jedi in this regard must understand that what they do is going to restore the balance in a situation. Sometimes, that means acting, and sometimes, that means no acting, but only by using the Force to know which can a Jedi do the correct thing. When a Jedi views the Force, they see that churning field of energy, and so a Jedi will sometimes calm the incoming wave by allowing it to pass uncontested, sometimes by applying a counter-force to stop it, but NEVER creating a wave where there is none. Knowledge, and defense, never attack.

When we apply this to a situation, we can see that only by understanding the situation and its relationship to the Force can we apply a proper reaction to it - sometimes we must let it unfold (knowledge) sometimes we must take up arms against it (defense). What we cannot do, is create a situation that presents conflict (attack) - or else we become the very thing we seek to stop.

Coincidentally, this is also precisely why the Jedi fell so easily into Palpatine's trap - to attempt to counter him prior to having concrete knowledge would create strife and cause untold unbalances across the universe - possibly for no reason (if they were wrong in their assumptions). So the Jedi always sought to commune with the Force for more insight, but Palapatine was very adept at not directly causing the strife himself, leaving him out of being seen as the epicenter of the imbalance.

Edit: Wow, sorry for the wall of pink ...

I liked the post, but not the font colour

I don't think what Yoda deems an appropriate response to the ruler of the galaxy revealing himself as a Sith Lord should be used as an example of what the PC's can do without Conflict...

-Nemo

I guess I see it like this: what is the difference between force shoving a Stormtrooper off a wall (where he might die) or leaping up there and chopping him to bits with a laser sword (where he will most certainly die)?

As long as the response is not gratuitous, then who cares what tool the Jedi uses?

It's not the tool used, it's the situation.

Because neither the Lightsaber nor Move is necessary if you can just tell him those aren't the droids he's looking for.

Esentially what the Wall of pink said: It doesn't mean literally do not attack anyone ever as that response may be required for the defence of their duty (by extention, themselves) and their purpose. They would never plan to attack someone premptively as that isn't how negotiations works, but rather work with all the parities involved to allow the diplomatic mission reach it's logical conclusion without bloodshed, foul play or anything else. However they are obligated to use their powers and tongue to ensure that this is a educated decision as often many lives are at stake in the discussions they are asked to overview. They are servants of the republic first and foremost as defenders of the peace so if they can resolve it peacefully, they will regardless of the cost.

This is partly why the Jedi were unwilling to act on behalf of Naboo against the trade federation, as the diplomatic situation would have been solved most peacefully by handing over the missing queen and signing the peace treaty. Thus Qui-Gon active directly against the will of the Jedi by "attacking" the trade federation and stirring up a conflict by the return of the Queen to the gun-gans to form a resistance movement, even if strictly speaking liberating an entire planet against a repressive organisation that saught to strip them of their rights was the right thing to do, but not what the Republic wanted, needless to say if they had followed that train of throught Naboo would have never been liberated as both the Jedi and the republic were too passive to respond. "Attacking" includes disruption of the status quo on a planet at any cost thus in a planet with legalised slavery they are obligated not to liberate said persons for example.

This was also the Jedi's greatest weakness as in that given role their abilities to actually make a difference to the universe was limited, they became pacified and withdrew from governing the republic itself, thus completely dulling any ability to act decisively against upcoming threats and let corruption fester in the republic like a cancer. It was precisely this passive behaviour that lead to them being grossly underprepared for the CIS movement and forced them to accept a clone army from someone they hadn't even spoken to in countless years. Needless to say they were indecisive and had grown complacent in peace to the extent they where ill prepared for war.

That being said, my character isn't a Jedi and despite his force sensitivity sees himself as a visionary first, a rebel hero second. Thus he has no real code about starting fights when he feels the need, much to the despair of the paragon Jedi in the party. (He also despirse them for their part in disrupting the second jewel of yavin heist on the smugglers moon planned by him, and his manipulation at their hands, but that's another tale for another day.)

I believe it *is* the tool. Yoda does not say that a Jedi does not attack. He says that a Jedi does not use the Force for attack.

Yeah, please no pink font, it's very pale on the forum background and hard to read, had to copy paste it to notepad to do so!

And honestly, I feel the Light/Dark side stuff gets taken too far, in that it's sooooo open for GM interpretation. The GM Gotcha above being a perfect example. I'm sorry, if the dude isn't surrendering and is using The Force against the one rescuing a kid? Wow... no, not defenseless.

Plus on Yoda? Obi-Wan and Yoda lied like crazy.

I think it's pretty clear from the movies that the Jedi used the force as a weapon if it was warranted. When it's warranted is open to interpretation and some of the low Conflict awards on the Conflict table could be used to fit these situations.