Assuming that this is somehow directed at me, I'll make it clear -- it means I dropped you into the ignore list, since you're clearly never going to actually address anything I actually post and just continue to double-down on your nonsense. You kept demanding things that I had already and repeatedly posted pages ago, and then in the height of irony kept accusing me of doing exactly what you've done over and over.

Clue for you, if you have any genuine curiosity at all and aren't just engaged in your long-winded attempt to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you -- go back and find the posts where I keep laying out "outcome" and "intent" as the criteria for judging the people's actions.

Either way... Go. To. Hell. I'm done with your pompous content-free windbaggery.

Assuming that this is somehow directed at me, I'll make it clear -- it means I dropped you into the ignore list, since you're clearly never going to actually address anything I actually post and just continue to double-down on your nonsense. You kept demanding things that I had already and repeatedly posted pages ago, and then in the height of irony kept accusing me of doing exactly what you've done over and over.

Clue for you, if you have any genuine curiosity at all and aren't just engaged in your long-winded attempt to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you -- go back and find the posts where I keep laying out "outcome" and "intent" as the criteria for judging the people's actions.

Either way... Go. To. Hell. I'm done with your pompous content-free windbaggery.

I am highly amused that you put me on ignore and still continue to respond to me.

I'm sure we'll cross paths again next time you want to complain that Star Wars is behaving like Star Wars and you don't like it because it's not "real" enough for you.

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

Well there's your problem right there.

Star Wars isn't real, and the only purpose to be served in treating it as such for thought experiments is the pursuit of immersion--something intended to further the story. But if you forgo the reality of it being a story, with the dramatic rules of a story, then what's the point of immersion?

That's an actual and ongoing problem with so much of what gets put out for movies and television -- the worldbuilding playing second-fiddle to the "dramatic rules" (and/or to the spectacle).

No, that's stories working as intended.

You don't tell a story to build a stage, you build the stage to tell a story. Without the story the stage has no purpose other than "it looks nice I guess".

It all has to make sense, each individual piece, and the whole.

Furthermore, treating the worldbuilding as a contrivance that serves only as backdrop, is no more the path to good fiction than the way that too many television series treat each character as a package of notable quirks who can otherwise be whatever "the story" for this week's episode demands.

The world is as much a character as the protagonist or the antagonist or any other.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

Well there's your problem right there.

Star Wars isn't real, and the only purpose to be served in treating it as such for thought experiments is the pursuit of immersion--something intended to further the story. But if you forgo the reality of it being a story, with the dramatic rules of a story, then what's the point of immersion?

That's an actual and ongoing problem with so much of what gets put out for movies and television -- the worldbuilding playing second-fiddle to the "dramatic rules" (and/or to the spectacle).

No, that's stories working as intended.

You don't tell a story to build a stage, you build the stage to tell a story. Without the story the stage has no purpose other than "it looks nice I guess".

It all has to make sense, each individual piece, and the whole.

Furthermore, treating the worldbuilding as a contrivance that serves only as backdrop, is no more the path to good fiction than the way that too many television series treat each character as a package of notable quirks who can otherwise be whatever "the story" for this week's episode demands.

The world is as much a character as the protagonist or the antagonist or any other.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

It is one thing to suspend one's disbelief.

It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

Well there's your problem right there.

Star Wars isn't real, and the only purpose to be served in treating it as such for thought experiments is the pursuit of immersion--something intended to further the story. But if you forgo the reality of it being a story, with the dramatic rules of a story, then what's the point of immersion?

That's an actual and ongoing problem with so much of what gets put out for movies and television -- the worldbuilding playing second-fiddle to the "dramatic rules" (and/or to the spectacle).

No, that's stories working as intended.

You don't tell a story to build a stage, you build the stage to tell a story. Without the story the stage has no purpose other than "it looks nice I guess".

It all has to make sense, each individual piece, and the whole.

Furthermore, treating the worldbuilding as a contrivance that serves only as backdrop, is no more the path to good fiction than the way that too many television series treat each character as a package of notable quirks who can otherwise be whatever "the story" for this week's episode demands.

The world is as much a character as the protagonist or the antagonist or any other.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

It is one thing to suspend one's disbelief.

It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

Well you keep try to apply the real world to the Star Wars world. That means you are not suspending disbelief.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

It is one thing to suspend one's disbelief.

It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

Well you keep try to apply the real world to the Star Wars world. That means you are not suspending disbelief.

"Suspension of disbelief" does not mean "accept everything on the screen at face value no matter what".

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

It is one thing to suspend one's disbelief.

It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

Well you keep try to apply the real world to the Star Wars world. That means you are not suspending disbelief.

"Suspension of disbelief" does not mean "accept everything on the screen at face value no matter what".

No. It means accepting what is on screen as long as it is INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. The Star Wars Universe has rules. Those rules are internally consistent. Those rules do not have to be consistent with our world. The Star Wars Universe will appear inconsistent if you ignore important details. Which you seem to keep doing.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. Stories need to be internally consistent. they do not however have to be consistent with the real world. Star Wars Morality has always been internally consistent. The universe in Star Wars does not give a crap about ones personal moral code or honor. Certain kinds of actions lead to the darkside. Whether they fit in a persons moral code or not. Star Wars is pretty black and white with very little gray.

It is one thing to suspend one's disbelief.

It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

Well you keep try to apply the real world to the Star Wars world. That means you are not suspending disbelief.

"Suspension of disbelief" does not mean "accept everything on the screen at face value no matter what".

No. It means accepting what is on screen as long as it is INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. The Star Wars Universe has rules. Those rules are internally consistent. Those rules do not have to be consistent with our world. The Star Wars Universe will appear inconsistent if you ignore important details. Which you seem to keep doing.

I don't think it is internally consistent, all details included.

Then again, I find the supposed "redemption" of Anakin / Vader a bit repugnant. Yay, you saved your own son's life at the very end, I guess that makes up for slaughtering children, murdering your former comrades, and being at least complicit in the deaths of billions...

To me, the setting is far more interesting for what can be made from it as a wider world to explore, rather than Lucas' own core story.

C. And this is the most important, you fail to recognize that there is no such thing as real world morality. None. Zilch. In the real world morality is just as inconsistent and contradictory as it is in the Star Wars world and in Force and Destiny. We have hundreds of different moral codes in the real world. To even remotely begin discussing real world morality you would first have to figure out whose real world moral code you're attempting to use and then justify why that particular code should be applied to the Star Wars universe. Even then you would have to show that your moral code isn't as inconsistent and contradictory as the one in Star Wars. Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

One minor quibble. The Commandment is not Thou shall not kill. It is Thou shall not murder. When you use the commandment correctly a lot of the inconsistency in that one go away. Not that I follow the religion.

C. And this is the most important, you fail to recognize that there is no such thing as real world morality. None. Zilch. In the real world morality is just as inconsistent and contradictory as it is in the Star Wars world and in Force and Destiny. We have hundreds of different moral codes in the real world. To even remotely begin discussing real world morality you would first have to figure out whose real world moral code you're attempting to use and then justify why that particular code should be applied to the Star Wars universe. Even then you would have to show that your moral code isn't as inconsistent and contradictory as the one in Star Wars. Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

One minor quibble. The Commandment is not Thou shall not kill. It is Thou shall not murder. When you use the commandment correctly a lot of the inconsistency in that one go away. Not that I follow the religion.

I follow religion a lot so I went back and double checked. According to the King James Bible I have it says kill. I will grant this though, there are translations inconsistencies so it is possible that some Bibles say murder and some say kill.

C. And this is the most important, you fail to recognize that there is no such thing as real world morality. None. Zilch. In the real world morality is just as inconsistent and contradictory as it is in the Star Wars world and in Force and Destiny. We have hundreds of different moral codes in the real world. To even remotely begin discussing real world morality you would first have to figure out whose real world moral code you're attempting to use and then justify why that particular code should be applied to the Star Wars universe. Even then you would have to show that your moral code isn't as inconsistent and contradictory as the one in Star Wars. Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

One minor quibble. The Commandment is not Thou shall not kill. It is Thou shall not murder. When you use the commandment correctly a lot of the inconsistency in that one go away. Not that I follow the religion.

Depends on the translation -- as with a lot of things. The original Hebrew or Koine Greek or Aramaic gets absolutely butchered in some spots.

C. And this is the most important, you fail to recognize that there is no such thing as real world morality. None. Zilch. In the real world morality is just as inconsistent and contradictory as it is in the Star Wars world and in Force and Destiny. We have hundreds of different moral codes in the real world. To even remotely begin discussing real world morality you would first have to figure out whose real world moral code you're attempting to use and then justify why that particular code should be applied to the Star Wars universe. Even then you would have to show that your moral code isn't as inconsistent and contradictory as the one in Star Wars. Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

One minor quibble. The Commandment is not Thou shall not kill. It is Thou shall not murder. When you use the commandment correctly a lot of the inconsistency in that one go away. Not that I follow the religion.

Depends on the translation -- as with a lot of things. The original Hebrew or Koine Greek or Aramaic gets absolutely butchered in some spots.

If the commandment were thou shall not kill.... how would one eat? ALL eating requires killing something. And if you look deeper into what the commandment it becomes clear it is about murder. As killing in self defense is never viewed as wrong. And clearly killing in war is ok. So It has to be referring to murder.

C. And this is the most important, you fail to recognize that there is no such thing as real world morality. None. Zilch. In the real world morality is just as inconsistent and contradictory as it is in the Star Wars world and in Force and Destiny. We have hundreds of different moral codes in the real world. To even remotely begin discussing real world morality you would first have to figure out whose real world moral code you're attempting to use and then justify why that particular code should be applied to the Star Wars universe. Even then you would have to show that your moral code isn't as inconsistent and contradictory as the one in Star Wars. Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

One minor quibble. The Commandment is not Thou shall not kill. It is Thou shall not murder. When you use the commandment correctly a lot of the inconsistency in that one go away. Not that I follow the religion.

Depends on the translation -- as with a lot of things. The original Hebrew or Koine Greek or Aramaic gets absolutely butchered in some spots.

If the commandment were thou shall not kill.... how would one eat? ALL eating requires killing something. And if you look deeper into what the commandment it becomes clear it is about murder. As killing in self defense is never viewed as wrong. And clearly killing in war is ok. So It has to be referring to murder.

I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out more info. I think you're probably right about the intent.

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

Well there's your problem right there.

Star Wars isn't real, and the only purpose to be served in treating it as such for thought experiments is the pursuit of immersion--something intended to further the story. But if you forgo the reality of it being a story, with the dramatic rules of a story, then what's the point of immersion?

That's an actual and ongoing problem with so much of what gets put out for movies and television -- the worldbuilding playing second-fiddle to the "dramatic rules" (and/or to the spectacle).

No, that's stories working as intended.

You don't tell a story to build a stage, you build the stage to tell a story. Without the story the stage has no purpose other than "it looks nice I guess".

It all has to make sense, each individual piece, and the whole.

Furthermore, treating the worldbuilding as a contrivance that serves only as backdrop, is no more the path to good fiction than the way that too many television series treat each character as a package of notable quirks who can otherwise be whatever "the story" for this week's episode demands.

The world is as much a character as the protagonist or the antagonist or any other.

I'm not sure why you're acting like I'm defending whatever sh*tty TV series you're obliquely referencing. Please stop putting words in my mouth and focus on the ones that are actually coming out.

"World building" is a process in which you set the stage for a story, not the actual story itself. When you start favoring the development of the world over the development of the characters--the actual agents of the story--then you're no longer telling a story, you're showing off fluff. Fluff is nice, but it does not make a story. When Obi-Wan talks about the Clone Wars in A New Hope he doesn't spend twenty minutes giving Luke a history lesson, he presents everyone with the relevant bits as demanded by the story. When Han boasts that the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs he doesn't go on and on about all his other impressive accomplishments that are irrelevant to the plot.

We explore these things later, in other stories, but they do not overshadow or even equal the story of Luke Skywalker. They support it.

Hey folks, since Max Killjoy has pretty much proven the last part of his name is 100% accurate in terms of having any meaningful discussion (frankly, seen more intelligent responses out of a primary school student), probably best to just ignore him. Kael and Daeglan have gone out of their way to address his points and offer perfectly valid counters to his criticisms, which are based upon the core fallacy that Star Wars has anything to do with reality. Something that others with far more patience than I have pointed out repeatedly yet he refuses to acknowledge, in spite of it being a care feature of the entire franchise starting from the very first move.

Reality happening in Star Wars is kind of like historical accuracy in Zack Snyder's 300 movie... if it happens, it's a happy accident.

Which of course means I find his stubborn denial of this core tenet rather hilarious since L5R is about as unrealistic. Bushido's an admirable thing, but the reality of the feudal Japan that L5R claims to mimic (and poorly at that) was that they wound up just being a bunch of pretty words that got tossed out the window as necessary. At least the Scorpion Clan is honest enough in the L5R setting to admit that fact. I wonder if he gets all into a twist about how blatantly unrealistic L5R is in its depiction of oriental cultures.

Kael and Daeglan have gone out of their way to address his points and offer perfectly valid counters to his criticisms, which are based upon the core fallacy that Star Wars has anything to do with reality.

Not really, especially the former -- that you think they have just goes to show how little attention has really been given to what I was actually been asking and arguing.

Reality happening in Star Wars is kind of like historical accuracy in Zack Snyder's 300 movie... if it happens, it's a happy accident.

Terrible movie, absolutely vomitous, which would be made marginally less egregious by filing off the names of the historical people and places and events that it's "based" on.

I wonder if he gets all into a twist about how blatantly unrealistic L5R is in its depiction of oriental cultures.

In some instances it does bother me, yes -- especially when it appears to take the awful western myths of Japan, et al, as historical facts and then treats them as sacrosanct basis for a fictional setting.

And when it just plain blatantly contradicts itself.

If the commandment were thou shall not kill.... how would one eat? ALL eating requires killing something. And if you look deeper into what the commandment it becomes clear it is about murder. As killing in self defense is never viewed as wrong. And clearly killing in war is ok. So It has to be referring to murder.

And hence why I used "Thou Shall Not Kill" as my go to point about the inconsistency inherent in most moral codes. I listed that one purposely because once you sit down and try to morally think about it you can come up with all kinds of situations in which killing has been morally justified.

Seems like with a great many things Maxie, you missed one of the core elements of the movie, in that it was framing device for a story being told to rally and inspire the troops, and much like many of the Greek myths it featured men not unlike those soldiers doing extraordinary things, like holding off a massive army for three days before finally falling because of base treachery. And as such never meant to reflect the actual historical events, but instead to get the troops pumped up over the fact that the upcoming battle with the Persians was much better odds than Thermopylae had been. Given how chock full of impossible feats and creatures that Greek mythology already is, painting the Persians as monsters is very much in keeping with the stories of that culture.

Of course, how many of those events from Herodotus' writings really did occur can and has been debated, given Herodotus' accuracy in his tellings of events has been criticized even during his own time frame for including exaggerations and embellishments. Modern scholars acknowledge his work as being "reliable" in comparison to other sources of the time, but by no means do they consider it a perfect accounting of events, but instead as the best we've got to work with until time travel exits the realm of science-fiction and become science-fact, thus enabling us to actually view those events first hand.

Seems like with a great many things Maxie, you missed one of the core elements of the movie, in that it was framing device for a story being told to rally and inspire the troops, and much like many of the Greek myths it featured men not unlike those soldiers doing extraordinary things, like holding off a massive army for three days before finally falling because of base treachery. And as such never meant to reflect the actual historical events, but instead to get the troops pumped up over the fact that the upcoming battle with the Persians was much better odds than Thermopylae had been. Given how chock full of impossible feats and creatures that Greek mythology already is, painting the Persians as monsters is very much in keeping with the stories of that culture.

Of course, how many of those events from Herodotus' writings really did occur can and has been debated, given Herodotus' accuracy in his tellings of events has been criticized even during his own time frame for including exaggerations and embellishments. Modern scholars acknowledge his work as being "reliable" in comparison to other sources of the time, but by no means do they consider it a perfect accounting of events, but instead as the best we've got to work with until time travel exits the realm of science-fiction and become science-fact, thus enabling us to actually view those events first hand.

The "Persians as monsters" thing was a bit silly, but not really what bothered me. The armor and tactics used by the Spartans are laughably inaccurate, and you think if it was a "Greeks telling a story to rally Greeks", that the Greek story-teller would at least get the Greek aspects correct.

300 was a spectacle-first movie based on a spectacle-first comic book based on a movie (that was in large part cold-war allegory, with romantic elements added due to Hollywood formula) based on a semi-mythologized retelling of historical events. It bears such a passing resemblance to the real people and events that it's mainly connected by the use of the names.

Seems like with a great many things Maxie, you missed one of the core elements of the movie, in that it was framing device for a story being told to rally and inspire the troops, and much like many of the Greek myths it featured men not unlike those soldiers doing extraordinary things, like holding off a massive army for three days before finally falling because of base treachery. And as such never meant to reflect the actual historical events, but instead to get the troops pumped up over the fact that the upcoming battle with the Persians was much better odds than Thermopylae had been. Given how chock full of impossible feats and creatures that Greek mythology already is, painting the Persians as monsters is very much in keeping with the stories of that culture.

Of course, how many of those events from Herodotus' writings really did occur can and has been debated, given Herodotus' accuracy in his tellings of events has been criticized even during his own time frame for including exaggerations and embellishments. Modern scholars acknowledge his work as being "reliable" in comparison to other sources of the time, but by no means do they consider it a perfect accounting of events, but instead as the best we've got to work with until time travel exits the realm of science-fiction and become science-fact, thus enabling us to actually view those events first hand.

The "Persians as monsters" thing was a bit silly, but not really what bothered me. The armor and tactics used by the Spartans are laughably inaccurate, and you think if it was a "Greeks telling a story to rally Greeks", that the Greek story-teller would at least get the Greek aspects correct.

300 was a spectacle-first movie based on a spectacle-first comic book based on a movie (that was in large part cold-war allegory, with romantic elements added due to Hollywood formula) based on a semi-mythologized retelling of historical events. It bears such a passing resemblance to the real people and events that it's mainly connected by the use of the names.

Which just goes to show you missed the point Donovan was making. But then you seem to miss everyone's point on everything in this thread. But then you just went on and on about the Persian's being monsters was bad. After you were told the movie is told from the Greek perspective and the person who wrote the story was said to be inaccurate by his own people.

Seems like with a great many things Maxie, you missed one of the core elements of the movie, in that it was framing device for a story being told to rally and inspire the troops, and much like many of the Greek myths it featured men not unlike those soldiers doing extraordinary things, like holding off a massive army for three days before finally falling because of base treachery. And as such never meant to reflect the actual historical events, but instead to get the troops pumped up over the fact that the upcoming battle with the Persians was much better odds than Thermopylae had been. Given how chock full of impossible feats and creatures that Greek mythology already is, painting the Persians as monsters is very much in keeping with the stories of that culture.

Of course, how many of those events from Herodotus' writings really did occur can and has been debated, given Herodotus' accuracy in his tellings of events has been criticized even during his own time frame for including exaggerations and embellishments. Modern scholars acknowledge his work as being "reliable" in comparison to other sources of the time, but by no means do they consider it a perfect accounting of events, but instead as the best we've got to work with until time travel exits the realm of science-fiction and become science-fact, thus enabling us to actually view those events first hand.

The "Persians as monsters" thing was a bit silly, but not really what bothered me. The armor and tactics used by the Spartans are laughably inaccurate, and you think if it was a "Greeks telling a story to rally Greeks", that the Greek story-teller would at least get the Greek aspects correct.

300 was a spectacle-first movie based on a spectacle-first comic book based on a movie (that was in large part cold-war allegory, with romantic elements added due to Hollywood formula) based on a semi-mythologized retelling of historical events. It bears such a passing resemblance to the real people and events that it's mainly connected by the use of the names.

Which just goes to show you missed the point Donovan was making. But then you seem to miss everyone's point on everything in this thread. But then you just went on and on about the Persian's being monsters was bad. After you were told the movie is told from the Greek perspective and the person who wrote the story was said to be inaccurate by his own people.

It's ironic that you give me grief about supposedly not getting other people's points, and then somehow you get out of my post that I'm really, really upset about the Persians being depicted as monsters... when what I said was this:

The "Persians as monsters" thing was a bit silly, but not really what bothered me.

I didn't say anything else anywhere in either post about the Persians.

Maybe before people give me crap about what I'm supposedly missing, they should bother reading my posts...

Edit -- of course, that's been pretty much the way this has gone... I post something, someone addresses something I didn't actually post, then makes a demand for something I already provided in the posts they were responding to, and then when they're called on it all, they just accuse me of "not getting it".

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

/Big Snip

Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

That word does not mean what you think it means. A murder is, by definition, a non-justifiable or unlawful homicide. If its justified its not murder. Its just killing, homicide.

And, while I'm an areligious existentialist today, I was raised Christian and spent almost twenty of my adult years in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community, ten of that in seminary. I read Hebrew and Judean Aramaic fluently and have read, studied, and analyzed the original Hebrew texts, and the commentary of the culture they emerged, numerous times.

The original texts cannot, by any remotely objective and competent scholar, be translated as "thou shalt not kill." Such a standpoint is academically and linguistically indefensible, speaking either illiteracy or a theological / personal agenda.

In other words, while I take the bible only as "wisdom," God (whatever that may or may not be) says nothing of the sort, and does nothing of the sort.

Daeglan and Kael,

Excellent posts regarding how Star Wars as a setting and Force and Destiny as an RPG handles morality.

Sadly they've flown right over the head of the intended recipient, but other folks will hopefully find them useful in terms of how the Morality mechanic for Force users operates, which in turn has little to do with how real-world morality operates.

Yeah, gee, sorry if I tried to analyze the setting as an actual "reality", instead of just taking Lucas' half-baked 70's mashup of half-understood religious concepts and all the fan-wanking that's been glued onto it over the decades as holy writ. I'm interested in addressing the morality in real terms, not in any way based on "because George said so" or "because it's a story for children".

/Big Snip

Taking the Christian moral code as an easy example, it tells us not to kill. Then proceeds to show us all the ways in which killing is ok. Even God, who said we shouldn't kill, does his fair share of morally justifiable murdering.

That word does not mean what you think it means. A murder is, by definition, a non-justifiable or unlawful homicide. If its justified its not murder. Its just killing, homicide.

And, while I'm an areligious existentialist today, I was raised Christian and spent almost twenty of my adult years in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community, ten of that in seminary. I read Hebrew and Judean Aramaic fluently and have read, studied, and analyzed the original Hebrew texts, and the commentary of the culture they emerged, numerous times.

The original texts cannot, by any remotely objective and competent scholar, be translated as "thou shalt not kill." Such a standpoint is academically and linguistically indefensible, speaking either illiteracy or a theological / personal agenda.

In other words, while I take the bible only as "wisdom," God (whatever that may or may not be) says nothing of the sort, and does nothing of the sort.

Ok but you're basically highlighting my point which was, real world moral codes are not cut and dry and consistent.

Unfollowing this post.

Thanks to folks that gave me some insight I can use in my first crack at F&D. I'm more comfortable after a few days of pondering, I'm confident I can roll w whatever they throw at me..