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 .

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?

3 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

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.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

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.

Nope. even going by the loosest interpretation of the "knowing inaction" penalty, it is still only one DSP.

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

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.

Yes, it does mean he couldn't try. Nor was he in any position to try, nor did he have the right to try. To even attempt to do any more than he did would have risked the mission, and caused greater suffering for Shmi, Anakin, those under his charge, and the people of Tatooine.

Morality and legality are not equivalent.

2 minutes ago, 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?

Not when there is no practical way to do so. No. No one has the right to force their moral view on another culture. There is an intersting quote form the PotJ SB, "Jedi are not creatures of morals". Once I bring the book by I'll be able to go more in depth what that means.

3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Morality and legality are not equivalent.

No, they're not. However, that does impose limits on what one person can do or has the right to do. Many of the greatest atrocities in history were done to force one man's "morals" on others. You also have to remember, that the Jedi only had any authority at all because the people of the galaxy allowed it.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Not when there is no practical way to do so. No. No one has the right to force their moral view on another culture. There is an intersting quote form the PotJ SB, "Jedi are not creatures of morals". Once I bring the book by I'll be able to go more in depth what that means.

If Jedi aren't creatures of morals, then following the Jedi Code should have no impact on whether or not someone is awarded Conflict points, since Conflict is awarded on a moral basis.

Stop trying to be some arbiter of moral and legal ethics, or the arbiter of what it means to be a Jedi - especially when you're citing non-canon sources. We're all aware of these things.

You're just wrong about Conflict - and those of us who have actually played the game are more experienced with it.

You haven't even commented on the fact that it can be personal ethos vs. duty.

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

If Jedi aren't creatures of morals, then following the Jedi Code should have no impact on whether or not someone is awarded Conflict points, since Conflict is awarded on a moral basis.

Taking that statement further to show it's ludicrous, if Jedi are not creatures of morals, then Anakin joining the Sith should not have been a problem for them. Joining a war should not have been an issue for Jedi, they shouldn't have had any struggles with maintaining a connection to the light side. If they are not creatures of morals then they should allow the Sith to exist instead of hunt them down, as their entire struggle with the Sith as shown in the 6 original films is based upon the idea that the Sith are evil, which is a moral viewpoint.

Hmmm how far reaching would this go?

Murder would be fine if it's legally allowed, because the Jedi are not creatures of morals.

Using the dark side is fine, because there are no laws prohibiting its use and the Jedi are not creatures of morals.

That kind of concept could justify any type of behavior as long as it is within the legal confines of the government you are governed under, because hey, morals don't apply to Jedi.

No, Tramp, Morality is at the very CORE of the Jedi religion. Without Morality, they would all be Sith.

8 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Stop trying to be some arbiter of moral and legal ethics, or the arbiter of what it means to be a Jedi - especially when you're citing non-canon sources. We're all aware of these things.

You're just wrong about Conflict - and those of us who have actually played the game are more experienced with it.

You haven't even commented on the fact that it can be personal ethos vs. duty.

Actually, I have, if you paid attention to my responses a little more carefully. Regardless of an individual's "personal ethos", if he has no right to interfere, nor duty to do so, he cannot do so without being fully in the wrong. And in the case of Qui Gon, he had no right, nor duty, nor obligation, nor capability to free Shmi. He only freed Anakin because the Force willed it, and the opportunity presented itself where he could do so without issue. Even if he killed Watto, that wouldn't free Shmi because of the bomb implanted inside her. Even if the bomb wasn't there, if he stole her, the Hutts would have had bounty hunters after them before they were even out of town. There is no way Qui Gon could have freed her, nor did he have to right nor obligation to do so regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. And to give in to those personal feelings is where Conflict would be earned, because then you are giving into your emotional weaknesses , not strengths.

and, as far as being wrong about Conflict. I am going straight by what is says in the book. Now, if you want me to get more practical experience with the game, which I also want, please, by all means, I am looking for more players/GMs for the round robin game I'm trying to organize. By all means, join in and help me get that "practical experience".

19 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

If Jedi aren't creatures of morals, then following the Jedi Code should have no impact on whether or not someone is awarded Conflict points, since Conflict is awarded on a moral basis.

Actually, based upon the RAW, it is awarded for whether you commit universally good or evil, and universally right or wrong acts, as far as the Force sees them , not as far as any one culture sees them.

5 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Taking that statement further to show it's ludicrous, if Jedi are not creatures of morals, then Anakin joining the Sith should not have been a problem for them. Joining a war should not have been an issue for Jedi, they shouldn't have had any struggles with maintaining a connection to the light side. If they are not creatures of morals then they should allow the Sith to exist instead of hunt them down, as their entire struggle with the Sith as shown in the 6 original films is based upon the idea that the Sith are evil, which is a moral viewpoint.

Hmmm how far reaching would this go?

Murder would be fine if it's legally allowed, because the Jedi are not creatures of morals.

Using the dark side is fine, because there are no laws prohibiting its use and the Jedi are not creatures of morals.

That kind of concept could justify any type of behavior as long as it is within the legal confines of the government you are governed under, because hey, morals don't apply to Jedi.

No, Tramp, Morality is at the very CORE of the Jedi religion. Without Morality, they would all be Sith.

GroggyGolem, did I not say I would bring the book in tomorrow to specifically go into more detail what that quote meant? It is a quote from a Jedi in that book. And there are specific details about what that quote actually means I cannot get into without it. So you are just going to have to be patient. Basically, it boils down to not imposing your personal morals on other cultures.

Imposing your own morals is a vastly different concept than not being a creature of morals, which is what you said previously.

I'm fairly certain the Jedi do impose their morals on people however, as they act upon their own moral code to serve and protect the galaxy as they see fit. It was only during the time of the prequel films that their imposition was hung up on how the Senate allowed them to act, which often went against their own moral code and they had to just live with the idea of obeying the law rather than their code sometimes, which sounds pretty conflicting. It's actually a very interesting situation. The more the Jedi involve themselves in the galaxy, the more they get wrapped up in the politics & government which can restrict them from doing what they are supposed to do. The less they involve themselves, the more that they can help but then they are potentially operating outside of the law.

5 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Imposing your own morals is a vastly different concept than not being a creature of morals, which is what you said previously.

I'm fairly certain the Jedi do impose their morals on people however, as they act upon their own moral code to serve and protect the galaxy as they see fit. It was only during the time of the prequel films that their imposition was hung up on how the Senate allowed them to act, which often went against their own moral code and they had to just live with the idea of obeying the law rather than their code sometimes, which sounds pretty conflicting. It's actually a very interesting situation. The more the Jedi involve themselves in the galaxy, the more they get wrapped up in the politics & government which can restrict them from doing what they are supposed to do. The less they involve themselves, the more that they can help but then they are potentially operating outside of the law.

Like I said, wait until I bring the book with me and I'll be able to get more in detail with you what that quote means. You are jumping to conclusions without understanding the context of the quote.

Is the book canon?

The first paragraph of my last post was in response to you Tramp, the rest of it was anecdotes on my viewpoint of the jedi involvement in the republic. Just to clarify that.

3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Is the book canon?

Oh absolutely not. Path of the Jedi was written before the 2014 Disney Canon began. I'm still curious what the book has to offer though.

*edit*

That is, assuming tramp means this book

3 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

The first paragraph of my last post was in response to you Tramp, the rest of it was anecdotes on my viewpoint of the jedi involvement in the republic. Just to clarify that.

Oh absolutely not. Path of the Jedi was written before the 2014 Disney Canon began. I'm still curious what the book has to offer though.

I know - I have the book at home, and I'm fairly certain that specific quote is from some of the commentary by the 'owners' - thus, its an opinion, not a fact.

Still, in the context of this discussion with what we see occur in the films, the quote is irrelevant. I guess that's what I was getting at.

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Is the book canon?

Just now, GroggyGolem said:

The first paragraph of my last post was in response to you Tramp, the rest of it was anecdotes on my viewpoint of the jedi involvement in the republic. Just to clarify that.

Oh absolutely not. Path of the Jedi was written before the 2014 Disney Canon began. I'm still curious what the book has to offer though.

I didn't say Path of the Jedi . I said the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook. It was a D20 RPG sourcebook that specifically covered the Jedi. It has some specific information in it regarding Jedi philosophy and ethics, which are relevant.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

I didn't say Path of the Jedi . I said the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook. It was a D20 RPG sourcebook that specifically covered the Jedi. It has some specific information in it regarding Jedi philosophy and ethics, which are relevant.

Soooo also more non-canon material then. It's hard to use non-canon material to inform star wars going forward since there's now this new canon that conflicts with it, especially regarding the force.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I didn't say Path of the Jedi . I said the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook. It was a D20 RPG sourcebook that specifically covered the Jedi. It has some specific information in it regarding Jedi philosophy and ethics, which are relevant.

Oh, well, that is most certainly not-canon and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Oh, well, that is most certainly not-canon and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Not true. the game rules of the book, obviously are irrelevant, Certain information is certainly no longer canon, but the core lore regarding Jedi philosophy and ethics is still there and still incorporated into current canon. And that is what I was specifically referencing. and that is still relevant.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not true. the game rules of the book, obviously are irrelevant, Certain information is certainly no longer canon, but the core lore regarding Jedi philosophy and ethics is still there and still incorporated into current canon. And that is what I was specifically referencing. and that is still relevant.

Canon source, please.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, based upon the RAW, it is awarded for whether you commit universally good or evil, and universally right or wrong acts, as far as the Force sees them , not as far as any one culture sees them.

How is that different from what I said?

5 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Haha. With fruit, it's easy. She understands "first; then" really well. Just have to be careful I don't let her dictate the terms too often With other foods (most meats/vegetables), it usually only works for 2-3 bites. She'll take a mouthful and then say "all done!" through the food that's still in her mouth, and refuse any further bites by not swallowing.

What works best in those situations is having Peppa Pig or Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood playing on a screen in front of her, then pausing it until she takes another bite. Rinse, repeat. Figure I can reason with her better once she's a bit older.

I fight the battles that I think matter the most

Except on these forums, that is...eesh! I need to get my priorities in order.

The pause/play Peppa Pig trick must be an international agreement, it works so well with our youngest.

Now, 3 more pages in under 4 hours, you guys are on fire!

5 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

How is that different from what I said?

Because the way you worded it suggested personal morals.

And to GroggyGolem, while I wasn't referring to Jedi Path (as you now know) I do have that book, and, if I remember correctly, does cover some of the same topics, though not that particular quote.

Still not-canon.

Not canon. But does explain why his views on this game are SOOOOO warped. Tramp you must unlearn everything you think you know about Star Wars gaming. D20 Star Wars is a completely different animal from FFG Star Wars. You are using D20 thinking for the dark side. Which is completely irrelevant in regards to FFG Star Wars. Your entire thought process for how conflict works in FFG Star Wars is completely wrong. You need to go reread it the rules in both the GM section and the Morallity chapter. You keep equating conflict to the darkside. That absolutely is not true. It would probably be more accurate to think of it as more emotional turmoil. You should also look at the charge of conflict inducing actions. Episode 61 of the order 66 podcast should be listened to. also listen to episode 18 where they actually discuss the darkside.. episode 36 would also be worth listening to.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Not canon. But does explain why his views on this game are SOOOOO warped. Tramp you must unlearn everything you think you know about Star Wars gaming. D20 Star Wars is a completely different animal from FFG Star Wars. You are using D20 thinking for the dark side. Which is completely irrelevant in regards to FFG Star Wars. Your entire thought process for how conflict works in FFG Star Wars is completely wrong. You need to go reread it the rules in both the GM section and the Morallity chapter. You keep equating conflict to the darkside. That absolutely is not true. It would probably be more accurate to think of it as more emotional turmoil. You should also look at the charge of conflict inducing actions. Episode 61 of the order 66 podcast should be listened to. also listen to episode 18 where they actually discuss the darkside.. episode 36 would also be worth listening to.

Dude... give it up. He's incapable of getting it. Even after its been pointed out a thousand times. He's is right and rest of the forums don't understand the rules. He has read the books , don't you know.