Just in case you were wondering...this is the 1200th post on this topic and we're still no closer to throwing people with impunity by using the Force or understanding the nature of the Jedi code and Conflict. Great work! Go team! LOL

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I already steered him to the podcast and he quite clearly has never listened... in the bad way.

I'm pretty sure he did mention having listened to an episode, somewhere back in the annals of this thread...

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Stupid phone and double posts...

2 hours ago, masterstrider said:

Just in case you were wondering...this is the 1200th post on this topic and we're still no closer to throwing people with impunity by using the Force or understanding the nature of the Jedi code and Conflict. Great work! Go team! LOL

Could you give a synopsis of the most important conclusions of this folder? Thank you .

34 minutes ago, NicoDavout said:

Could you give a synopsis of the most important conclusions of this folder? Thank you .

To summarize:

7 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

The weighting of Watto's die only happens in the novelization of TPM, which makes it legend. So not such a great argument in Qui-Gon's defense and anyway, Qui-Gon could only have guessed that Watto's chance cube was weighted—his vindication in that sense would be purely coincidental, unless he somehow had knowledge of Watto's loaded cube in the first place.

No, Watto clearly is expecting a certain result on the chance cube in the movie. That's why he shakes it in surprise after the "roll". Qui-Gon, having supernatural perceptions, realized the cube was rigged.

4 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Qui-Gon, having supernatural perceptions, realized the cube was rigged.

Or did the Force tell him...?

He doesn't need the Force to tell him that a guy who owns a child-slave with a bomb surgically implanted in his body is untrustworthy.

6 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

He doesn't need the Force to tell him that a guy who owns a child-slave with a bomb surgically implanted in his body is untrustworthy.

Really makes you wonder why Qui-gonn didn't make some effort to rescue Shmi...

Not really. Jurisdiction and priorities.

4 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Not really. Jurisdiction and priorities.

Morality and Conflict don't give one whit about jurisdiction, and the fact that Qui-Gonn didn't consider rescuing the mother of the boy he wanted to recruit into the Jedi from "a gu y who owns a child-slave with a bomb surgically implanted in his body" a priority is exactly why Conflict would be awarded.

I can tell you feel strongly about this.

But I don't know why you're talking as if I disagreed with any of that.

20 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I can tell you feel strongly about this.

But I don't know why you're talking as if I disagreed with any of that.

Actually, we're pretty much talking as if we disagree with Tramp's claim that there is only one "correct" way to view the conflict system and the Force/Jedi/morality, and if we don't agree with him in every way we are wrong and don't understand anything about the lore and the fandom. That's what I feel strongly about. He can play his game however he wants but I fail to be thrilled at someone lecturing me on something as if I'm an idiot for possessing an opinion.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Actually, we're pretty much talking as if we disagree with Tramp's claim that there is only one "correct" way to view the conflict system and the Force/Jedi/morality, and if we don't agree with him in every way we are wrong and don't understand anything about the lore and the fandom. That's what I feel strongly about. He can play his game however he wants but I fail to be thrilled at someone lecturing me on something as if I'm an idiot for possessing an opinion.

One, the post quoted me and was addressed to me, not Tramp.

Two, while I'm not going to check whether you engaged in that behavior, a number of other posters in this thread have treated Tramp exactly the way you complain about being treated. Why single him out here?

Why didn't Qui-gon free the slaves or at least Shmi?

He did. Twice. He originally tried to bargain for her freedom. Watto said he only wager one of his slaves and Qui-gon decied Anakin was more important and cheated. (Aside from Anakin's force sensitive nature, freeing the mother but not the child would have problems all on it's own).

He also tried to buy her after the pod race but Watto wouldn't do it.

But he could have kept on trying right? So the film should take a even longer main plot detour to detail how Qui-gon is going to bypass the security measures implanted in Shmi? Better to just assume that Qui-gon reasonably concluded he could not free Shmi without seriously compromising his actual mission (the one that involves millions on Naboo being put into camps and starved to death).

Qui-gon could barely manage to scrape together part to fix a ship and free one slave - and he had to trust in the piloting abilities of someone he'd just met. He could reasonably conclude that freeing slaves was not possible.

It all depends on how clear cut you want morality to be in your game - from Rogue One we know that the Rebels certainly had a ... flexible morality. We know from TFA that the light side "tempts" Kylo Ren, so that's new and funky. Morality may no longer be as clear cut as it was in the OT, and potentially the PT -although I'm of the opinion that the Jedi during that era were corrupted, blind and ignorant - proud basically - and had, or was steadily, falling towards the dark side. We see signs of this in Yoda's pilgrimage and in his dialogue with Ezra in Rebels. Of all the Jedi, he seems to be the only one, or of a handful few, that is open to the idea that they know less than they think. Some others are of this belief too, but they all fall to the dark side with this realisation (Bariss, Dooku, Krell to name the ones I remember.) This tells me that using dark side pips from the Force die, if you want to port those stories into game speech, is not uncommon among Jedi when the need arises, but with desperation and a crumbling sacred canopy, the temptation gets too strong and they regularly use the DSPs, as they're afraid of losing to the darkness... fire with fire, darkness with darkness... whatever. Doing it every now and then is one thing, it balances out, but you only need one bad or a few minor proper missteps, and you're sliding down the razor blade. Yet, this is up to interpretation of course. As with all things.

It also depends on how strictly you want to adhere to the rules, and how much you see the rules - specifically the Conflict rules - as guidelines.

It is also dependant upon how consistent you like to be. How flexible you want to be and how rigid.

Arguably personal rationalisation doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to the Force (GM) and how it (s/he) dispenses conflict points, but it could. If that's how you want to play it. And sure enough, as long as it doesn't bog down the game, I'll allow discussion about it during play. But I tend to dish out conflict in secret, giving fair warning if I'm not sure the player would be aware of the consequence of his or her action.

This secret dispensary of conflict is of course a known quantity for my players, we have discussed it and agreed that it makes the most sense for the flow of our game. Sure, they sometimes disagree or become surprised at my dishing out of conflict, one sometimes tries to discuss it... but I have a rules of thumb: a session where not one player gained any conflict wasn't a session (ignoring conflict talents.) There's always a reason for some conflict. No character is perfect or without flaws, or poor judgement... that's not a character, that's a myth, a legend, an ideal, and figment of lore, ideology and fanaticism. It's my role as the GM to portray those [inappropriate descriptives], not the players.

It is easy to interpret the Conflict table in light of the Jedi Code - in which case what could give you conflict, and how much, could vary depending on era you set the game in, if you want to be all relative about it. This is where Qui-Gon won't necessarily get conflict for not saving two slaves ( if you ignore Ronin's points above, about actually having tried and all that, which could matter...?), Qui-Gon is saving the youngling slave, and its outside his mission parameters and jurisdiction. Also, there's a perspective were you place more value upon the young and full of potential, compared to the old, half-broken, slave (not saying that its right, good or correct, just saying, its a perspective.) This perspective could be fine, in a version of the setting where conflict is contingent upon the dominant view and understanding of the Force (which could make sense in some instances.)

Morality is generally fluid and changes over time (and in space.) So such a perspective isn't a bad idea, as it allows you to test out stricter or looser notions of morality, and as such looser or stricter ideas of good and evil. It could make it more, or less, relative... more ambiguous, or less.

Also, you could set the Conflict table after how strong the influence of the Dark Side is in the galaxy in the time the game is set. Then you'd have to decide: when the dark side is strong, do you dish out extra conflict? Or is it when the dark side is weak and in need of getting strong you dish out extra conflict? Both makes sense, but which one will inform your game in the best way? Because isn't there an ebb and a flow to the Force? It seeks balance, or some seek balance, and some seek dominance of one side or the other.

You could of course also see it as a list of commandments not to be deviated from at all. Period. Or something in between. One thing isn't more "right" than another, as long as its in your game, and you players are onboard with it (talking it over beforehand is a good idea, even if you think it is obvious, people are generally terrible at communicating.)

The legends material is rife with contradictions, straight out lunacy and silly ideas, and the new canon material isn't exactly packed to the brim with insights into the mysterious workings of the Force - yet there are some titbits here and there. Ahsoka comes to mind as one particular book with some nice insights.

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

One, the post quoted me and was addressed to me, not Tramp.

Two, while I'm not going to check whether you engaged in that behavior, a number of other posters in this thread have treated Tramp exactly the way you complain about being treated. Why single him out here?

For one, I imagine it's because you responded to a post that was addressed to Tramp as if you were defending his point of view. And the question isn't if it was wrong of Qui-Gonn to cheat the roll, it's if it could be considered as deserving of a tiny bit of conflict.

For the second, I single him out because after several posts of people telling him 'this is why people aren't on the same wavelength, this is where the disconnect is' and having flat out tell us we were incorrect and the only possible correct way of viewing things was his way... I'm sick of his rudeness.

Nobody is arguing that Qui-Gonn should have done something different. No one is arguing that Yoda should have done different or that either of them we 'bad' characters. What we're arguing (I'm arguing) is that it's reasonable to assume that they could have been conflicted over their actions and choices. That there is no single right answer and there could be several interpretations of the whole chain of events and that having a character that earns conflict (even on a regular basis) does not equal a character that is 'bad' or a dark-sider, because conflict does not represent the dark-side. And sometimes, yes, a character may be in a situation where it's 'impossible' to avoid conflict. Leaving that slave in terrible conditions and taking her son away when she can't follow is a teeny bit of conflict. But starting a war with the Hutts and allowing the situation on Naboo to degenerate into all out war is a lotta bit of conflict. Neither are unreasonable assumptions.

Great comments Jegergryte.

The prequel Jedi are often described by fans as corrupted and that's why the Sith/Empire happened but I take a different view - that being fallible beings Jedi of all eras have always struggled with some form of corruption. 1000 generations of peace is quite an accomplishment (and perhaps lulled them into being proud) and speaks well of the Jedi Code generally, but Sidious was particularly skillfull and hit the Jedi in all their weak spots and took advantage of them brilliantly. (As a side note, training Anakin was against the code, which Yoda warned against, and Anakin turned out to be the poster boy for the relevancy of the Jedi Code; Also Yoda's advice to Anakin echoes Shmi's advice to a younger Anakin almost word for word).

And so I think it goes with any PC in the game and the purpose of the Morality/Conflict system: it's all about the inner struggle to live a higher ideal. No being is perfect and so gaining Conflict is inevitable and I think a healthy outlook is to expect to gain Conflict.

Also, it's important to remember that the Conflict rules specifically state that they are designed to not make gaining Conflict an automatic loss in Morality. Sure, big actions may result in an "automatic" loss in Morality but most do not. The character struggling to live a higher ideal and accruing small amounts of Conflict will on average steadily increase in Morality.

If a player wants to play a character that never (or very very rarely) will spend DS pips that's fine too. But there are other ways of gaining Conflict (failing a Fear check, immoral actions). And such characters still face tough decisions about the best course of action. And you can work this purity into the Strength/Weakness aspect of the character quite well - their purity can be a strength and a weakness. There are already a bunch of entries on the table that can be used.

I think Star Wars has a pretty stark good vs evil morality but sometimes it can be hard to discern. Afterall, we have Yoda warning Luke about aggressiveness...while training him to confront (kill) Vader and Sidious. But this can all be fun fodder for the gaming table.

Jedi Ronin: Yeah, I forgot to clarify some things, but as a general comment to your latest post: Yes.

EDIT: Also, how about using Move on people? Did you guys settle that?

13 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

For one, I imagine it's because you responded to a post that was addressed to Tramp as if you were defending his point of view. And the question isn't if it was wrong of Qui-Gonn to cheat the roll, it's if it could be considered as deserving of a tiny bit of conflict.

Which response do you mean?

The discussion has gone way beyond just Conflict. Happydaze, for one, certainly took a broader view than just Conflict in their comments on the gambling. Otherwise their comments about throwing shade on the Jedi wouldn't make any sense at all.

13 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

For the second, I single him out because after several posts of people telling him 'this is why people aren't on the same wavelength, this is where the disconnect is' and having flat out tell us we were incorrect and the only possible correct way of viewing things was his way... I'm sick of his rudeness.

Imagine how he feels having been insulted for page after page of this thread over a game of make-believe. I'm certain there is frustration on multiple sides here.

3 minutes ago, Jegergryte said:

EDIT: Also, how about using Move on people? Did you guys settle that?

Shhhhhhhhh... just let it go.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

I'm certain there is frustration on multiple sides here.

Ya don't say.

With regards to Qui-Gon and his efforts to free Shmi (which JediRonin has already noted), bear in mind that Qui-Gon was very much "on the clock" and had to get Queen Amidala to Coruscant so that (hopefully) Chancellor Valorum could get the Senate to do something about the rather illegal Naboo invasion that the Trade Federation was conducting. He's already suffering a bad delay from having to win the parts required to fix the ship in a podrace, and is probably aware that things on Naboo are not going well for the natives; in Legends, there was the Invasion of Naboo box set by WotC that had the residents of Theeds being herded into concentration camps for purposes generally unspecified. And in the film, one of the Queen's advisors even says in a message that things are pretty bad for her people.

So this isn't like Qui-Gon's on one of his personal "**** fool crusades," so he has to accept that he can't liberate Shmi at the moment and get on with his mission. If he'd not been killed by Darth Maul later in the film, Qui-Gon may very well have been willing to go back to Tatooine and see about freeing Shmi, if only so that it's one less distraction for Anakin during the boy's Jedi training.

So no, I wouldn't give Qui-Gon any conflict for leaving Shmi behind, as he did what he could with the means he had readily available to free her. And for a decade at least, things actually worked out as Shmi was freed not too long after and married Clegg Lars. So who knows, maybe Qui-Gon got a sense from the Force (mysterious ways and all) that things would be okay for Shmi if he failed to free her?

36 minutes ago, Jegergryte said:

EDIT: Also, how about using Move on people? Did you guys settle that?

The reasonably intelligent folks that understand not to take everything in the rules literally figured that one out in the early going, well before we got a more recent dev answer. There's apparently a couple folks that are still in denial about it, but they've been distracted by the shiny ball that is arguing over application of Morality/Conflict.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Which response do you mean?

The discussion has gone way beyond just Conflict. Happydaze, for one, certainly took a broader view than just Conflict in their comments on the gambling. Otherwise their comments about throwing shade on the Jedi wouldn't make any sense at all.

Imagine how he feels having been insulted for page after page of this thread over a game of make-believe. I'm certain there is frustration on multiple sides here.

You mean my comments on the Jedi only having an obligation to be honest with other Jedi, and even then pulling the "No True Jedi" fallacy to justify being dishonest with other Jedi when it suits them? Is it any wonder why people didn't trust them?