1 minute ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Stubborn: having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so.

So he admits that he's not going to change his views, even if they are wrong.

/Thread

Well, given that a lot of the "argments' given I do not consider "good" ones, nope. probably not.

If one person calls you a mule, laugh it off.

If two people call you a mule, start to wonder.

If everyone calls you a mule, buy a halter and barn.

Like, seriously, what happens when you reach 100 LS, Tramp? Game over? Done? If you're never getting Conflict, then why... why even play? Just write a story.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Tramp, I am not talking about rewarding that way. I mean, it is more rewarding for the overall narrative if every character is struggling with the balance between light and dark, which is represented by earning Conflict. It's one of the central tenets of Force and Destiny's themes. I wouldn't want to play with a character who just... doesn't really get Conflict all that much. It's like they're a glorified NPC who doesn't do anything.

And, no, forcing a situation where Conflict is inevitable is not poor GMing - if it's every single time, sure - but the whole point of Morality is those dilemmas.

That's where we differ. I find characters like Yoda, Qui Gon Jinn, and Obi-Wan to be very interesting characters, and these are characters who are very disciplined, and do not readily earn Conflict. This is because they do have a firm grasp on their emotions and understand right from wrong, and have the control not to give in to the temptation for easy power. they always look for the right answer to a problem rather than act rashly. And no, the central tenet is not represented by actually earning Conflict, but rather facing choices where earning Conflict is a possibility . Simply put, not every character does struggle with that balance. The three characters I mentioned above being some of them. Even in real life history there are people who have mastered that struggle, where it would be a truly extreme situation where such a person would struggle with a moral decision. Jesus, Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Mother Theresa, Buddha; all of them have a strong moral center. As such, it would be very difficult to really put them in a moral quandary, and if they existed in the SW universe would not be earning Conflict very often because they would know in their hearts what was the morally right answer.

Now, is that the only type of character I would play? No. In fact, I have made a second character (a starting character) who is likely to be much more "morally" conflicted given the character's upbringing.

9 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

If one person calls you a mule, laugh it off.

If two people call you a mule, start to wonder.

If everyone calls you a mule, buy a halter and barn.

A viewpoint being popular does not make it correct .

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Whether a character earns Conflict needs to be a matter of choice . A player and his character must be able to choose to earn Conflict not be force into taking Conflict no matter what choice he makes. Yes, those choices should be hard choices, but they should still be there. The option to be able to make a choice that does not earn Conflict must be a possibility, even if it is a remote or very difficult one to make. To focre a situation where Conflict is inevitable no matter what is poor GMing.

What kills me, is that a character who absolutely flat out refuses to use ds pips, even in a Life or Death situation (and feeling absolutely justified in doing so) is actually a neat concept and could result in some really interesting game play and pc interactions. I could totally see myself playing that character.

A player who flat out refuses to accept the consequences of his actions is not an acceptable concept. Sometimes the 'right' thing is the bad thing. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is the good thing. Conflict is not player controlled. It's player influenced.

Maybe your character already missed the point where he could have chosen the 'no conflict' solution. Maybe the actions of another pc forced an issue. Maybe a string of bad rolls happened at a bad time and what could have been a conflict avoiding option is no longer viable. But you don't get to just declare that there are no consequences. There are no save points, there are no back buttons, there are no cheat codes. Sometimes the best option is taking one conflict instead of six. Sometimes, what you consider morally right is corrupt to someone else. You are not the final voice on what is and isn't moral because no one is.

Page 37: "When used wisely, Destiny Points provide tension and excitement by...adding an element of drama to the mundane, or helping provide a boost when the PCs are overwhelmed." (emphasis mine).

@Tramp Graphics , being "railroaded" would be the GM forcing you to take a specific action. But if you are the one rolling the dice, then you are the one that has made the bed that you're now saying you're being "forced" to sleep in. Or to use another analogy, you chose to use the Force power, so you were the one that dug the hole that you are now saying you've been "railroaded" into. Please explain how you think this is GM railroading.

This is all hypothetical, of course, but still the point remains: the player chooses his action, rolls the dice, and has to live with the consequences of his choices. No one forced him into this specific predicament: the all-black pips are of his own choice & making. Instead of using the Force with his action, he could have spent that Destiny Point like you're suggesting and said "hey there's a length of rope there, I'm gonna run to it and belay my friend while he grabs on, heedless of my own safety." That's freaking awesome RP, and true light-side behavior.

What you're suggesting is just a failure to take responsibility for your own choices.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A viewpoint being popular does not make it correct .

Neither does something being bolded.

And the fact that literally everyone here, who plays the system (that you've never played a day in your life), most of us for years , are telling you you're wrong about how you're looking at Conflict...maybe that should mean something to you?

Nah, Tramp can't be wrong! That's unpossible!

Wait, you really think Yoda, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Obi-Wan didn't earn Conflict throughout the films? On the contrary, they were earning it left and right.

17 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

What kills me, is that a character who absolutely flat out refuses to use ds pips, even in a Life or Death situation (and feeling absolutely justified in doing so) is actually a neat concept and could result in some really interesting game play and pc interactions. I could totally see myself playing that character.

A player who flat out refuses to accept the consequences of his actions is not an acceptable concept. Sometimes the 'right' thing is the bad thing. Sometimes the 'wrong' thing is the good thing. Conflict is not player controlled. It's player influenced.

Maybe your character already missed the point where he could have chosen the 'no conflict' solution. Maybe the actions of another pc forced an issue. Maybe a string of bad rolls happened at a bad time and what could have been a conflict avoiding option is none longer viable. But you don't get to just declare that there are no consequences. There are no save points, there are no back buttons, there are no cheat codes. Sometimes the best option is taking one conflict instead of six. Sometimes, what you consider morally right is corrupt to someone else. You are not the final voice on what is and isn't moral because no one is.

Except in this hypothetical situation, the number of Conflict earned is the same no matter what. Therefore there is not good choice at all. And actually, I was asked to respond to a situation where I did not have a choice what the response was. And no, Conflict is not just player Influenced. IT's Player Controlled . A player must be able to choose whether or not he will make an action which will earn him Conflict. In fact, the book even states that the GM should warn a player that if he makes a certain choice of action it will earn him Conflict and give him the opportunity to make a different choice. To quote:

Quote

The character can also accumulate Conflict for performing immoral actions, as determined by the GM. Extreme actions, including taking lives, can give the PC a significant amount of Conflict. However, the GM should always inform players if their characters are about to perform an action that would cause them to earn Conflict. The GM does not have to tell the player the exact amount of Conflict their characters would earn, but should give them an idea of the severity of the penalty. --(F&D page 51)

Never should a player be in a situation where he will earn Conflict no matter what choice he makes.

4 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Wait, you really think Yoda, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Obi-Wan didn't earn Conflict throughout the films? On the contrary, they were earning it left and right.

Actually, I highly doubt, Qui Gon and Yoda earned much Conflict, if any. And the same with Obi Wan as a Master.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, I highly doubt, Qui Gon and Yoda earned much Conflict, if any. And the same with Obi Wan as a Master.

Qui Gon openly defied the Jedi council when he decided to train Anakin despite being told no. That seems pretty arrogant to me, and worthy of some conflict. And Obi Wan left Anakin to die despite the fact that he could have saved him. Again seems worth some conflict.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, I highly doubt, Qui Gon and Yoda earned much Conflict, if any. And the same with Obi Wan as a Master.

Qui Gon used Move to deceive a chance cube, withheld information from the Queen, risked a young boys life for profit, and tried to make a junker believe credits will do fine, to name a few.

Obi Wan lied to Luke, influenced the mind of a stormtrooper, cut a aqualish's arm off, and made shady deals with smugglers all before even leaving Tatoonie.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, I highly doubt, Qui Gon and Yoda earned much Conflict, if any. And the same with Obi Wan as a Master.

Did we watch the same films? They are constantly struggling - there is Conflict everywhere - you can even see it on their faces at times.

2 minutes ago, Deimos119 said:

Qui Gon openly defied the Jedi council when he decided to train Anakin despite being told no. That seems pretty arrogant to me, and worthy of some conflict. And Obi Wan left Anakin to die despite the fact that he could have saved him. Again seems worth some conflict.

Nope. Defying the Council is not Conflict worthy. Qui Gon believed in following the Will of the Force over strict dogma or "rules". And Obi-Wan was also under no moral obligation to try and save Anakin from burning either.

Wow. Okay.

Clearly you have a very different idea of what is morally right.

Further - Conflict is not always bad vs. good, sometimes it's a conflict between duty and personal feelings, or various other dilemmas. So, yes, Qui-Gon defying the Council is absolutely Conflict worthy.

2 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Qui Gon used Move to deceive a chance cube, withheld information from the Queen, risked a young boys life for profit, and tried to make a junker believe credits will do fine, to name a few.

Obi Wan lied to Luke, influenced the mind of a stormtrooper, cut a aqualish's arm off, and made shady deals with smugglers all before even leaving Tatoonie.

In each and every one of those instances, they were for selfless reasons. The Chance cube was to better Anakin's chance for freedom. Allowing Anakin to race, and mind trick Watto was to ger parts that were desparately needed to complete a mission for the sake of the beliegered naboo, not for personal gain. The same with the information witheld from Padme. Theywere all in their best interests, not his own. The same with Obi Wan "lying" to Luke about his father. It was in Luke's best interest .

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Wow. Okay.

Clearly you have a very different idea of what is morally right.

Further - Conflict is not always bad vs. good, sometimes it's a conflict between duty and personal feelings, or various other dilemmas. So, yes, Qui-Gon defying the Council is absolutely Conflict worthy.

No. It isn't. And yes, Conflict, by RAW , is always between what is good and evil , not duty and personal feelings.

Qui-Gon did a crap ton of conflict-worthy stuff (it was all piddly, but still, a couple points of Conflict per session)—and he is the only Jedi in the whole of the Saga that ever mentions "The will of the Force." Interesting, that. He's painted as a bit of a rogue, and yet he is deeply concerned with "the will of the Force."

Examples of conflict:

He puts Jar-Jar into a catatonic state using the Force

He bets with someone else's property

He cheats on the die roll with Watto, frees Anakin but leaves Shmi in slavery (fully knowing how uncaring Watto is as a slave master), then lies to Anakin about not being able to free her.

He defies the council and doesn't "follow the code," at least according to Obi-Wan. This is dubious but is at least worth consideration.

He's willing to throw Obi-Wan under the bus to take on this "Chosen One," against the will of the entire Council. This could be an example of personal pride getting in the way.

He goes and drives Darth Maul back and goes off to fight him on his own, allowing himself to be drawn into conflict rather than waiting for Obi-Wan.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. Defying the Council is not Conflict worthy. Qui Gon believed in following the Will of the Force over strict dogma or "rules". And Obi-Wan was also under no moral obligation to try and save Anakin from burning either.

So believing you know better than the most experienced members of your order isn't arrogant? No one knows the will of the force, to believe otherwise would be arrogant. While Obi Wan may not have had an obligation to save him it isn't right to let him suffer in agony is it?

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

Qui-Gon did a crap ton of conflict-worthy stuff (it was all piddly, but still, a couple points of Conflict per session)—and he is the only Jedi in the whole of the Saga that ever mentions "The will of the Force." Interesting, that. He's painted as a bit of a rogue, and yet he is deeply concerned with "the will of the Force."

Examples of conflict:

He puts Jar-Jar into a catatonic state using the Force

He bets with someone else's property

He cheats on the die roll with Watto, frees Anakin but leaves Shmi in slavery (fully knowing how uncaring Watto is as a slave master), then lies to Anakin about not being able to free her.

He defies the council and doesn't "follow the code," at least according to Obi-Wan. This is dubious but is at least worth consideration.

He's willing to throw Obi-Wan under the bus to take on this "Chosen One," against the will of the entire Council. This could be an example of personal pride getting in the way.

He goes and drives Darth Maul back and goes off to fight him on his own, allowing himself to be drawn into conflict rather than waiting for Obi-Wan.

Jar Jar was irrational and panicking, threatening their safety. Qui Gon's actions diffused the situation, and no harm was done to Jar Jar. No Conflict.

Qui Gon's betting was for the benefit of the mission with full knowledge of that "third party" (Padme was right there).

He "cheated" on the die roll to save Anakin. Besides, according to the Visual Dictionary, Watto's Chance Cube was rigged . And he wasn't lying when he said he couldn't free Shmi. That really wasn't an option; certainly not without resorting to unnecessary violence. And in all actuality, Watto was not mistreating either Shmi or Anakin anyway, so, as far as Slave owners went, he treated them pretty well.

As I said, defying the Council is not Conflict worthy in and of itself. And he wasn't throwing Obi Wan under the bus, so to speak. Obi Wan was ready for the trials. There really was not much more for him to learn under Qui Gon. Obi Wan may not have been ready to be a teacher, but he was ready to be a full fledged Knight (as recognized by the Council after Qui Gon's death).

He drives Maul back and fights him on his own because he had to . He couldn't wait for Ob Wan. Even if he didn't go on the offensive, Maul would certainly have done so, and there was no time for Ob Wan to catch up, as he was completely cut off from the fight by the energy gates.

9 minutes ago, Deimos119 said:

So believing you know better than the most experienced members of your order isn't arrogant? No one knows the will of the force, to believe otherwise would be arrogant. While Obi Wan may not have had an obligation to save him it isn't right to let him suffer in agony is it?

Not necessarily, no. The Council was, as Yoda himself admitted years later, bogged down by dogma. that was actually hindering the Jedi, and drawing them away from what was really most important. Qui Gon just understood this much sooner and was willing to put his faith in the Will of the Force over the dogma of the council.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And in all actuality, Watto was not mistreating either Shmi or Anakin anyway, so, as far as Slave owners went, he treated them pretty well.

So... slavery is good as long as the slave master is nice?!? Uh... wtf?

Just now, Dunefarble said:

So... slavery is good as long as the slave master is nice?!? Uh... wtf?

Good is a point of view, Dunefarble. Some people think Nickleback is good.

1 minute ago, Dunefarble said:

So... slavery is good as long as the slave master is nice?!? Uh... wtf?

No. That's not what I said. However, Slavery was legal on Tattooine. And Qui Gon did not have the legal authority to free any of them. Therefore he couldn't do anything about Shmi.