Also - the section on Morality literally states that a Force user "must constantly ensure that he is acting in a manner consistent with his personal ethos." It even talks about how Conflict can be earned through certain narrative actions. One of the Weaknesses is Recklessness - and you can be reckless for a good reason.
So, yes, it absolutely can be a conflict between personal feelings and duty.
Just now, Benjan Meruna said:Good is a point of view, Dunefarble. Some people think Nickleback is good.
Good is a point of view... unless you're Tramp, apparently, in which case it's whatever he decides he wants to do.
Just now, Tramp Graphics said: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.
Are...are you suggesting that morality is completely dependent on legality?
Because if that's true, the Jedi had a moral obligation to let Palpatine do whatever he wanted, he was legally given his powers by the Senate, and they VOTED him into Emperorship.
1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said: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.
So... he had to chose between following the moral strictures of his Order and the legal strictures of his location... and you don't think that could have earned conflict?!
Just now, StarkJunior said:Also - the section on Morality literally states that a Force user "must constantly ensure that he is acting in a manner consistent with his personal ethos." It even talks about how Conflict can be earned through certain narrative actions. One of the Weaknesses is Recklessness - and you can be reckless for a good reason.
So, yes, it absolutely can be a conflict between personal feelings and duty.
Being reckless, is crossing the line between right and wrong , regardless of the "reason". That's the difference between bravery and recklessness. Being reckless puts yourself, and possibly others, in unnecessary danger . That is what makes it wrong, and thus Conflict worthy.
You said conflict is always between good and evil just a few posts ago. You can be reckless without it being evil. Anakin was reckless more than a few times, but he wasn't being evil in those moments. Further, you can be reckless without giving into the Dark Side.
As well, are you going to address the fact that it absolutely can be between personal feelings and duty?
Edited by StarkJuniorJust now, StarkJunior said:You said conflict is always between good and evil just a few posts ago. You can be reckless without it being evil. Anakin was reckless more than a few times, but he wasn't being evil.
As well, are you going to address the fact that it absolutely can be between personal feelings and duty?
Or even duty and the well-being of innocents.
4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Being reckless, is crossing the line between right and wrong , regardless of the "reason". That's the difference between bravery and recklessness. Being reckless puts yourself, and possibly others, in unnecessary danger . That is what makes it wrong, and thus Conflict worthy.
13 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:Are...are you suggesting that morality is completely dependent on legality?
Because if that's true, the Jedi had a moral obligation to let Palpatine do whatever he wanted, he was legally given his powers by the Senate, and they VOTED him into Emperorship.
No, however a Jedi does not have the right, nor authority (even through the Jedi Council) to violate the laws of a given culture. And, as far as slavery goes, while it was outlawed in the Republic, Tatooine was not in the Republic, and was under the authority of the Hutts. To basically overthrow the laws of the rightful rulers of that planet, and violate their culture would be worse. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread regarding Conflict, There are numerous discussions on this subject in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook for D20. which specificaly deals with these situations, and specifically establishes that a Jedi is under no moral nor legal obligation to interfere in the culture of the population he is visiting. Nor does he have the right to do so. One of the examples given is a Jedi dealing with a race that routinely consumes other sentients for food.
12 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:So... he had to chose between following the moral strictures of his Order and the legal strictures of his location... and you don't think that could have earned conflict?!
No, it wouldn't. IT has long been established in canon, that even by Jedi law, a Jedi does not have the moral nor legal right or obligation to interfere with the culture of a given population.
As far as Palpatine, goes, however, Palpatine specifically engineered his ascension, and usurpation of the legal government through duplicity and lies. He was a threat to the true authority of the Senate, and a threat to the Jedi and galaxy as a whole.
Edited by Tramp Graphics7 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:reck·lessˈrekləs /adjective
The key phrase in the definition: " without thinking or caring about the consequences " . That is what makes recklessness wrong and therefore Conflict worthy. It places the individual and his companions in unnecessary danger. That is morally wrong.
3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:No, it wouldn't. IT has long been established in canon, that even by Jedi law, a Jedi does not have the moral nor legal right or obligation to interfere with the culture of a given population.
So.... just out of curiosity.... why were they fighting Palpatine and the Sith? As it was pointed out, he came to power through a legitimate vote. Killing him seems like a pretty significant bit of interference to me.
10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:As far as Palpatine, goes, however, Palpatine specifically engineered his ascension, and usurpation of the legal government through duplicity and lies. He was a threat to the true authority of the Senate, and a threat to the Jedi and galaxy as a whole.
The Hutt's came to power through deception, genocide, and outright war. What exactly is the statue of limitations on this?
1 minute ago, Dunefarble said:The Hutt's came to power through deception, genocide, and outright war. What exactly is the statue of limitations on this?
Whatever it needs to be to support Tramp's arguments.
Just now, Dunefarble said:So.... just out of curiosity.... why were they fighting Palpatine and the Sith? As it was pointed out, he came to power through a legitimate vote. Killing him seems like a pretty significant bit of interference to me.
HE came to power through manipulating the Senate into voting him to power, And every action he took threatened the galaxy. He manipulated a war to destabilize and weaken the Jedi and the Republic , all to engineer his rise to power. He ordered the genocide of the Jedi order. Every action Palpatine took was in violation of the Republic, with the sole purpose of ultimately destroying the Republic and replacing it with a Sith Empire, the ultimate goal of the Sith for thousands of years. Therefore, they had every right and obligation to stop him.
6 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:The Hutt's came to power through deception, genocide, and outright war. What exactly is the statue of limitations on this?
Given that the specific events which allowed the Hutts as a species to rise to power happened thousands of years ago, and the individuals involved are long dead? And what about the Colicoids? It is their natural culture to eat other sentients as a matter of course. Should the Jedi go in and punish them simply for fulfilling their biological drives? Like I said, this is actually covered in existing sources. IF you want, I can bring the book I mentioned with me tomorrow, and provide specific quotes.
Edited by Tramp GraphicsYou do realize that an organization might say you don't have an obligation to do something but you can still feel a moral obligation to do something, right? And that thing can still be very wrong and you can earn Conflict by not doing anything about it, or earn Conflict by doing it, but also going against what your organization says? Both earn Conflict, but one is more Conflict because you are letting innocents suffer.
Again - it's personal feelings vs. duty. Since, you know, Morality in Force and Destiny is a personal thing - personal ethos. Not every Jedi/Force user has the same exact moral obligations.
Edited by StarkJuniorCanon works would probably be more appropriate to the discussion at hand.
And we're not talking about a cultural power here. We're talking about one Jedi, one slave, and the opportunity to free that slave, and he didn't. Because he wanted Anakin to not have any attachments, he was willing to leave Shmi in a life of bondage, where she was obviously miserable, and implanted with a lethal explosive device. No way that is morally okay. Neither was the half-truth he told Anakin about it.
Just now, StarkJunior said:You do realize that an organization might say you don't have an obligation to do something but you can still feel a moral obligation to do something, right? And that thing can still be very wrong and you can earn Conflict by not doing anything about it?
Again - it's personal feelings vs. duty. Since, you know, Morality in Force and Destiny is a personal thing - personal ethos. Not every Jedi/Force user has the same exact moral obligations.
Not when you really don't especially if you don't have the power to do so either. One person can't overturn a whole society's culture. They not only don't have the right nor obligation to do so, particularly through violence , their is no way they could feasibly do so in any practical sense of the word. The Conflict rules, by RAW only cover those things your character actually can affect control over. When there really is nothing he can realistically do, there is no Conflict earned.
3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Given that the specific events which allowed the Hutts as a species to rise to power happened thousands of years ago, and the individuals involved are long dead?
Again, at what point does the statue of limitations kick in? When did the Jedi, as an Order, go 'eh... enough is enough, we'll call them legit now. They're cool by us.'
And the question isn't whether these examples exist, it's whether there should be any conflict when someone comes face to face with them. Of course they exist. Of course starting a war with Hutts isn't a good choice. But there is still gonna be some conflict from walking away from a slave you could free.
And even something small like the chance cube. Watto was cheating, fine. But Qui-Gonn made the decision to cheat in response. He could have said, 'no, we use a different cube' or tried to renegotiate the deal or done any number of alternative actions. But he didn't. He cheated, and took the quick, easy way. Hmmm. Perhaps the TRUE will of the Force was for him to lose. Perhaps that's why Watto had a loaded die. Perhaps Anakin needed some time to mature and learn to control his emotions. Perhaps Watto needed more time to realize that Anakin and Shmi deserved to go free. You can't possibly know the answers to those questions.
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:Except in this hypothetical situation, the number of Conflict earned is the same no matter what.
I'd like to address this, as it hasn't been so far. The hypothetical situation of using the dark side points to fuel your power and save a life compared to choosing not to use them and let that person die is not a situation where the Conflict earned would be the exact same either way because letting someone die when you could stop it is tantamount to murder, which is 10+ on the Morality scale (the + meaning it should usually be way more than just 10). Compare this to the 2-3 points of Conflict you would earn saving that life.
2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Not when you really don't especially if you don't have the power to do so either. One person can't overturn a whole society's culture. They not only don't have the right nor obligation to do so, particularly through violence , their is no way they could feasibly do so in any practical sense of the word. The Conflict rules, by RAW only cover those things your character actually can affect control over. When there really is nothing he can realistically do, there is no Conflict earned.
That doesn't mean you can't try . And that sounds exactly like the type of adventure for Force and Destiny - a group of Force users restoring peace and justice to a part of the galaxy by taking down a corrupt government that runs a slave trade on the planet?
Sign me up.
I'm also speaking generally in that such a situation can definitely happen. Again, personal ethos vs. duty. Totally a situation that can happen.
Also, in the terms of Qui-Gon, he absolutely could have attempted to free Shmi.
Just now, awayputurwpn said:Canon works would probably be more appropriate to the discussion at hand.
And we're not talking about a cultural power here. We're talking about one Jedi, one slave, and the opportunity to free that slave, and he didn't. Because he wanted Anakin to not have any attachments, he was willing to leave Shmi in a life of bondage, where she was obviously miserable, and implanted with a lethal explosive device. No way that is morally okay. Neither was the half-truth he told Anakin about it.
He didn't because he couldn't . He didn't have the moral, nor legal right to free Shmi. And the very fact that Shmi herself accepted this without issue bears this out. And, remember, Qui Gon himself said that he was not there to free slaves .
Any thoughts on this, TG? I'd be interested to get your opinion on whether you think players aren't responsible for their die rolls, and how a GM following through on a player's dice pool roll could possibly constitute "railroading."
1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:
@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.
Just now, Tramp Graphics said:He didn't because he couldn't . He didn't have the moral, nor legal right to free Shmi . And the very fact that Shmi herself accepted this without issue bears this out. And, remember, Qui Gon himself said that he was not there to free slaves .
Wait wait wait... it's morally wrong to free slaves?
1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:He didn't because he couldn't . He didn't have the moral, nor legal right to free Shmi. And the very fact that Shmi herself accepted this without issue bears this out. And, remember, Qui Gon himself said that he was not there to free slaves .
Morality and legality are not equivalents. You argument is invalidated by way of false equivalency.