Yes. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you.

What makes an action wrong is:

1) the outcome -- what effect does it have on other people?

2) the motive/intent -- why did you do it?

So far, your explanations keep coming down to "it's wrong because it's wrong". If the motive is the same and the outcome is the same, where's the difference? Other than in the faerie tale "just so" "morality"?

You obviously don't understand the basic of storytelling here. I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or not but I've explained why it's wrong several times. Either accept it or don't. But I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you over and over again the basics of storytelling and Star Wars narrative structure.

Star Wars does not appear to be the game for you since you have trouble grasping it's basic story structure.

You've explained why the Jedi THINK it's wrong.

As for the "basic story structure", I couldn't care less. The movies and animated series show a far more complex and morally gray world than some fans and some EU authors have cooked up. I'm interested in the setting, and the characters, and the stories -- not some half-baked candyland "morality" that people have tacked onto it over the decades.

You've explained why the Jedi THINK it's wrong.

Incorrect. I.at.no.point.have.argued.this.is.the.Jedi.point.of.view. The only time I've said Jedi is now, when I'm refuting your silly counterpoint.

As for the "basic story structure", I couldn't care less. The movies and animated series show a far more complex and morally gray world than some fans and some EU authors have cooked up. I'm interested in the setting, and the characters, and the stories -- not some half-baked candyland "morality" that people have tacked onto it over the decades.

This isn't WotC. This isn't the OCR or the RCR or Saga. This is FFG Star Wars, which is based on the material provided in the OT. This is not a universal Star Wars game that tries to capture all the various ways people have tried to badly retell the OT for $$$$$. The people who made this game even said they were trying to make this game play like the OT movies. Not TCW. Not the PT. Not what EU authors have said. They wanted to replicate the OT movie trilogy experience. As such the material covered in the OT, it's story elements, the basic design that Lucas creates takes precedence over any other form of Star Wars branding.

As for the half backed candyland morality that was tacked on over the decades. You would be incorrect (again). That morality that you call halfbacked was apart of the Star Wars saga from the start. Star Wars was first and foremost a morality play long before it was anything else. Though for the most part both the PT and the NT continue much of what the OT does as well as TCW and Rebels. None of the actual canon stuff is all that moral complex or gray.

Why do you think the Clone Wars was fought between robots and clones? To lower the overall level of moral complexity involved in depicting a war (that was being aimed at a child audience.)

If you don't care about the basic story structure then stop complaining about it. Stop asking people for answers that have already been given. You obviously care about it, because this isn't the first time you've railed against the basic nature of the OT and this game that tries to recreate the structure of the OT. This game is trying to give us the OT experience. And it does that very well. But with the OT experience comes the OT morality play narrative.

Or rather, you're assigning something to the OT that the fans and various EU authors have made up, but isn't actually there in the OT.

I don't care what FFG's team has said that they're trying to do, the one thing they're clearly not doing is actually duplicating the OT itself.

Or rather, you're assigning something to the OT that the fans and various EU authors have made up, but isn't actually there in the OT.

I don't care what FFG's team has said that they're trying to do, the one thing they're clearly not doing is actually duplicating the OT itself.

Ah so you're here to tell them how badly they're running the Star Wars license. Gotcha.

I mean, you're wrong of course as FFG is actually knocking it out of the park with this brand of Star Wars, but at least we've finally gotten to the truth of the matter.

Or rather, you're assigning something to the OT that the fans and various EU authors have made up, but isn't actually there in the OT.

I don't care what FFG's team has said that they're trying to do, the one thing they're clearly not doing is actually duplicating the OT itself.

Ah so you're here to tell them how badly they're running the Star Wars license. Gotcha.

I mean, you're wrong of course as FFG is actually knocking it out of the park with this brand of Star Wars, but at least we've finally gotten to the truth of the matter.

The only thing we've gotten to is where you keep attacking a strawman.

Or rather, you're assigning something to the OT that the fans and various EU authors have made up, but isn't actually there in the OT.

I don't care what FFG's team has said that they're trying to do, the one thing they're clearly not doing is actually duplicating the OT itself.

Ah so you're here to tell them how badly they're running the Star Wars license. Gotcha.

I mean, you're wrong of course as FFG is actually knocking it out of the park with this brand of Star Wars, but at least we've finally gotten to the truth of the matter.

The only thing we've gotten to is where you keep attacking a strawman.

Incorrect. My last post wasn't an attempt to refute an argument.

Or rather, you're assigning something to the OT that the fans and various EU authors have made up, but isn't actually there in the OT.

I don't care what FFG's team has said that they're trying to do, the one thing they're clearly not doing is actually duplicating the OT itself.

Ah so you're here to tell them how badly they're running the Star Wars license. Gotcha.

I mean, you're wrong of course as FFG is actually knocking it out of the park with this brand of Star Wars, but at least we've finally gotten to the truth of the matter.

The only thing we've gotten to is where you keep attacking a strawman.

Incorrect. My last post wasn't an attempt to refute an argument.

Cute, really, but it wasn't your only post. You've been arguing against things I haven't said and in general falling back on "if you disagree with me you don't understand" and "if you disagree with me, you should leave" for a while now.

At any rate, I'm done with my part in derailing this thread.

If anyone wants to make a case that there's some sort of moral difference between throwing someone off a building with the force and shooting them with a blaster, and do so from a real, actual, grown-up ethical standpoint, then let's have another thread elsewhere.

Cute, really, but it wasn't your only post. You've been arguing against things I haven't said and in general falling back on "if you disagree with me you don't understand" and "if you disagree with me, you should leave" for a while now.

Says the man that said my argument was made from the Jedi point of view despite the fact that at no point did I ever mention Jedi (or any Force tradition for that matter) in explaining why there was a difference.

If anyone wants to make a case that there's some sort of moral difference between throwing someone off a building with the force and shooting them with a blaster, and do so from a real, actual, grown-up ethical standpoint, then let's have another thread elsewhere.

The case was made, by multiple people, utilizing different examples and explanations. None of which were acceptable to you. You want some real world mega explanation about why it's so different and at the heart of it there is no real world moral reason because the story itself does not make use of real world narrative structures to tell it's story. There are different kind of moral stories out there. And each one makes use of a different kind of logic. And not all logic applies to all such stories in equal ways. The moral code backing Star Trek is different from the moral code backing Star Wars which is different from the moral code backing Battlestar Galatica. You want some kind of universal moral theory that would hold up for all in a medium in which there is no singular moral theory.

But at the end of the day we've explained to you, in different ways, why it's different. And at the end of the day you simply refuse to accept the answer.

And yet we have the protagonist Han, who shot first, and was in it for the money, and worked for some of the worst gangster scum in the galaxy, and dithered over joining in the attack on the Death Star until the last minute... hardly "faerie tale" material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero

And yet we have the protagonist Han, who shot first, and was in it for the money, and worked for some of the worst gangster scum in the galaxy, and dithered over joining in the attack on the Death Star until the last minute... hardly "faerie tale" material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero

Anti heroes show up all the time in faerie tales. Just because Disney cleaned all the stories up does not mean the faerie tales did not have anti heroes. They did. Go read the original grimm faerie tales as the Grimm brothers ACTUALLY told them. And yes good and evil's definitions were always fixed in Star Wars as well as old Faerie Tales.

Take Jack from Jack and the Bean Stalk. Not a good guy.

So basically if I want to toss someone off a roof or murder them as long as I don't use the force I'm not using the dark side and I'm a paragon of virtue as far as its concerned?

How ever if in self defense I shove a dude off a roof or knock them out by choking them by using the force I'm suddenly an evil monster?

Wrong again. Murder causes conflict. 10 of them in fact. Does not matter if you use the force or not. If someone is attacking you and you slam them into a nearby wall no conflict or at least a minor amount if you did not even attempt to defuse the situation. If you resorted to violence first. You are not using excessive force. You are using an appropriate amount of force to deal with the situation. If you use the force to toss someone 200 meters into the air. That is excessively cruel because you are not only killing them you are making sure they die in terror. You are putting someone into a situation that they know they are going to die and there is nothing they can do about it. The same applies if you toss someone off a building. Unless it is the only option you have. The whole of the situation matters. Causing additional fear just because you can is not ok.

These guidelines have been star wars from the beginning. Pay attention to what Yoda says on Dagoba Listen to old interviews with Lucas. Look at the Heros journey. Look at classic myths.

"The hero's journey" jumped the shark as soon as writers stated taking it as prescriptive instead of descriptive.

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.

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".

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?

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).

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".

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.

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".

Yeah you call Lucas half baked and then wonder why no one takes you seriously.

At any rate I know for a fact that you don't want a real discussion and I can break it down into three reasons.

A, You dismiss anything that doesn't line up to your preconceived notions. You ignore the parts of an answer that actual explains what you want and dismiss any argument that takes a meta approach in favor of claiming no one is being an adult about this.

B. You keep forgetting that Star Wars isn't really based on the real world. Most of what we see in Star Wars defies the real world. The act of having the Force defies the real world. the moon of Endor not falling into a nuclear winter defies the real world. Palapatine getting to Anakin in time defies the real world. You blatantly ignore the fact that very little of Star Wars adheres to anything related to the real world.

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.

So when you say that's not how real world morality works I must only assume that you are as clueless on real world morality as you are Star Wars morality. Because real world morality makes no sense either. Things are bad in real world morality because people say they are bad. At least when I offer up story narrative as justification I'm basing it on noted traditions in literature critique. You're just dismissing anything that doesn't meet your personal moral code while ignoring the fact that morality itself in the real world makes no real sense either.

So having come to where all your other arguments are revealed as hollow, you fall back on childish insults and repeated assertions that not agreeing with you is equivalent to ignorance.

You speak of ignoring what doesn't suit one's argument, and yet you've ignored the actual questions and arguments I'm posted every time.

So having come to where all your other arguments are revealed as hollow, you fall back on childish insults and repeated assertions that not agreeing with you is equivalent to ignorance.

A. You've never demonstrated anyones argument is hollow.

B. Didn't insult you, just pointed out your behavior. If pointing out your behavior is insulting then so be it.

C. I didn't say not agreeing with me is the equivalent of ignorance. I'm just saying you haven't done the foundational work to have the kind of conversation you claim you want to have. You have in fact not established the basis from which to have a conversation on morality. You have in fact not defined what you mean by morality. You have in fact not explained why your definition of morality should be applied to Star Wars. That's not saying you're ignorant. That's saying you haven't done the work to prove your case. You want a real world discussion of morality in Star Wars, define morality. Define what you mean by it. Explain why your definition should be applied to Star Wars. Explain why other moral codes do not apply. You can't claim you want a real world discussion if you don't do the work required to have a real world discussion.

It's a pointless discussion to be sure. And I'm pretty sure you'd dismiss everyone's point like you always do. But if you're going to at least pretend to be serious about this, then do the serious work required to believe your proposition.

In your attempts to dismiss, deride, and belittle my posts, you just keep demonstrating that you're the one guilty of everything you accuse me of. You've never actually addressed a single point I've made or answered a single question I've asked, ever, not once, not in any way -- all the while trying to hide this behind long-winded ad hom and a bunch of "lit crit" bulls*** and double-speak. No matter how much you object otherwise, you're just throwing up a bunch of "well if you don't agree with me you're obviously not educated enough to engage in this conversation" snootiness.

*plonk*

In your attempts to dismiss, deride, and belittle my posts, you just keep demonstrating that you're the one guilty of everything you accuse me of. You've never actually addressed a single point I've made or answered a single question I've asked, all the while trying to hide this behind long-winded ad hom and a bunch of "lit crit" bulls*** and double-speak. No matter how much you object otherwise, you're just throwing up a bunch of "well if you don't agree with me you're obviously not educated enough to engage in this conversation" snootiness.

*plonk*

I stopped answering your questions because when I did answer your questions you dismissed those answers without any real logic behind it other than it didn't explain it the way it fits into your head canon. But you still fail to illustrate the basics for why we should take your position seriously. At no point have you defined morality. At no point have you given justification why your definition is the one that should be applied. I've challenged you to do this multiple times and at no point have you actually sat down and justified your position. Instead you've just asked people to explain morality in Star Wars to you and then dismiss those explanations because they don't measure up to your real world definition of morality. But at no point have you even defined real world morality.

Also you seemed to be confused. I'm not saying if you disagree with me you're not educated. I mean, yes I do doubt your level of education. But I've challenged you to define the terms you are using. That's not calling you uneducated. That's not calling you ignorant. You have repeatedly mistaken attempts to get you to define what you mean as calling you ignorant and uneducated.

I say again, define real world morality. Explain why real world morality as you see it needs to be applied to the Star Wars universe. Explain why other real world moral codes should not be applied. This isn't a question of your intelligence. This isn't me calling you ignorant because you don't agree with me. This is me point blank telling you to define the terms of the discussion. Explain your perspective and why that perspective should be the one from which we should morally judge Star Wars.

For a guy who sits back and complains that I've not answered any of your questions or addressed your points you seem to consistently refuse to do the same. If you want to question morality you first have to define what morality is. That's like moral discussion 101. When someone says same sex marriage is morally wrong, they define their moral code (by referring to the Bible). When someone says abortion is morally wrong they define their moral code (by referring to the Bible). That makes it possible to discuss those two topics on moral grounds because we know what moral code is being applied. You have questioned the morality demonstrated in Star Wars, but at not point have you established a moral baseline from which to have, as you put it, "adult conversation" on the matter.

So either define morality, explain why your definition applies to Star Wars or stop complaining about the morality of this game. But you can't challenge the morality behind the game and not in turn define the morality you're using to challenge it.

Wow, and I even linked to what *plonk* means.

Wow, and I even linked to what *plonk* means.

I don't click your links to wikipedia. I consider any off site links you provide to be pointless shortcuts to you having to make an actual argument.

Also, again, you have still failed to define morality. By your continued failure one can only assume you were never seriously seeking to have a real discussion of morality in Star Wars in real world terms.