2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's not irrelevant. It is very relevant. XP efficiency is one of the key factors in building any character. This is because the more you can get out of your XP the better off your character will be mechanically. Therefore, finding the right career, and the right combination of career skills, specializations, talents, and Force Powers is essential. This is also true when trying to build a canon character accurately for the fewest XP possible.

When stating NPC's (which Yoda would be) XP efficiency is an irrelevant argument. Also, not everyone builds their characters the most XP efficient way. Some people build their characters based on concept, others based on what happens in game.

Nothing says we have to build Yoda with the fewest XP possible and I have my doubts you can justify the logic required to make the rest of us assume that's given.

15 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

But, as had been pointed out by someone in this thread , the characters aren't necessarily correct. Anakin doesn't strike me as someone who cares enough about the law to actually learn about it.

Which is why Windu shut him down with "That's not how it works, Anakin! This is totally legal!"

...right?

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Which is why Windu shut him down with "That's not how it works, Anakin! This is totally legal!"

...right?

It's in the deleted scenes.

5 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Which is why Windu shut him down with "That's not how it works, Anakin! This is totally legal!"

...right?

I believe he was a bit busy not being murdered.

And he uses the argument he thinks will work with Anakin.

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I believe he was a bit busy not being murdered.

You believe incorrectly. When Anakin was saying Palpatine must strand trial, Palpatine was crying on the floor.

In fact, Mace Windu was so not busy he had time to shout back "He has too much control of the Senate and the Courts. He is too dangerous to be kept alive."

Mace was pretty clear in his message to Anakin: We have to go outside the law. Windu doesn't think it's legal, he just doesn't care. Which is justified in my opinion, but it doesn't change the legality of the situation or the definition of an assassin.

No, that doesn't prove that killing him was illegal. it could be a case of two possible options. Executing him as a traitor, or risking a public trial. Doesn't mean only one is legal.The situation just isn't that simple.

It's also not an assassination. he came to arrest Palpatine, who used lethal force to resist. even while pretending to cower he was still armed, which Windu knew perfectly well. Force lightning is known to him, and it's a deadly weapon, after all. He was facing an armed and dangerous murderer, not a subdued unarmed prisoner.

Wouldn't the Senate and the Courts have legal jurisdiction in the Republic? With his statement, Windu is implying that his actions are circumventing their authority by virtue of the fact that they are controlled by Palpatine.

In other words, he's doing something that is, at the very least, legally questionable.

Not that he doesn't have good reason—from Windu's point of view, Palpatine had twice resisted arrest by trying to kill him. And he did have a good point: Palpatine had too much political power. If he had control of the courts, like Windu suggested, then any trial might've well been a sham. Plus he's a Sith Lord, and he orchestrated the Clone Wars for his benefit, and did a bunch of other dark dark evil stuff, so from our perspective, Palpatine really deserved to die. But still, Windu is making a case for doing something that is of dubious moral and legal substance—respectively, executing an opponent (not the Jedi way), and killing the current Supreme Chancellor.

Additionally, at that point, he is about to kill the sitting Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, which would make it an assassination attempt. Like I said, be didn't go there as an assassin, but he sure died (or did he?) like one.

It doesn't matter that he's the chancellor. He's a traitor. There is no doubt.

But if we're assuming Laws: it stands to reason that Palpatine swore a legally binding oath to uphold the laws and protect the Republic. Breaking it legally ended his tenure. Boom, no more chancellor.

6 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

It doesn't matter that he's the chancellor. He's a traitor. There is no doubt.

But if we're assuming Laws: it stands to reason that Palpatine swore a legally binding oath to uphold the laws and protect the Republic. Breaking it legally ended his tenure. Boom, no more chancellor.

Sure, but Windu didn't actually have any proof of that.

We know it's true, but Windu just had a hunch.

A hunch didn't murder three Jedi Masters in front of his eyes and confirm himself as the person who had orchestrated the deaths of millions.

And whether Windu had proof or not doesn't change Palpatine's status.

9 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

A hunch didn't murder three Jedi Masters in front of his eyes and confirm himself as the person who had orchestrated the deaths of millions.

And whether Windu had proof or not doesn't change Palpatine's status.

Thing is, Palpatine didn't confirm anything. Obviously, Windu would've had every reason to believe this guy that could kill Jedi Masters and used a red lightsaber to indeed be the Sith Lord the Anakin had identified. He probably could have put two and two together that this was the guy who trained both Dooku and Maul, owing to his amazing combat prowess compared to the other two (both of whom were able to be killed by non-Master-level Jedi). But legally he didn't have the proof he needed. And maybe that was just another reason he thought that the execution needed to happen.

I agree that Windu was justified in his attempted actions. He would've taken conflict as a PC had he actually killed Palpatine, and he probably would've had a hell of a trial trying to prove that Palpatine was the orchestrator of the Clone Wars, but he certainly had good reasons. I agree with all that. But that doesn't change the fact that he was about to commit murder.

32 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

It doesn't matter that he's the chancellor. He's a traitor. There is no doubt.

But if we're assuming Laws: it stands to reason that Palpatine swore a legally binding oath to uphold the laws and protect the Republic. Breaking it legally ended his tenure. Boom, no more chancellor.

You're confusing audience knowledge here. There is what we know to be true, and what the Jedi could prove to be true. We know Palpatine was a traitor. The Republic did not. The Jedi had no proof of treason before acting, and technically a good lawyer could get Palpatine off on the charge of treason since the Jedi did not have actual evidence, only the say so of Anakin. So it would be Anakin's word against the Chancellor's word.

Since, to the best of our knowledge, it is not a crime to be a Sith the Jedi have no legal standing to arrest Palpatine. He can claim self-defense. In the very least he could instill reasonable doubt.

16 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

And whether Windu had proof or not doesn't change Palpatine's status.

Actually, it does. A person isn't a traitor just because the Jedi say they are. Being as how he remained chancellor that indicates that his real status was that f Chancellor, and not traitor. While we the audience know this to be true the in setting Republic had no clue what had been done and it would have been te Jedi's job to prove their accusation.

39 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

But if we're assuming Laws: it stands to reason that Palpatine swore a legally binding oath to uphold the laws and protect the Republic. Breaking it legally ended his tenure. Boom, no more chancellor.

This is not how this kind of stuff works. It requires more than breaking one's oath to end one's tenure in a political office such as chancellor. To lose the position you have to actually go through the legal process of stripping them of these powers. If we are assuming Laws we must assume that they require a procedure. You're not going to find an example of a republic in which just breaking the oath effectively ends your tenure. There must be proof that the oath has been broken and formal charges brought against the person.

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

He would've taken conflict as a PC had he actually killed Palpatine

I would have given Mace Conflict the moment he decided to kill Palpatine after he surrendered and started begging for his life. Then I would have given Anakin Conflict for choosing the greater evil over the greater good. And for good measure I'd of given Palpatine Conflict for his use of Force Lightening. That was a Conflict laden scene.

19 minutes ago, Kael said:

I would have given Mace Conflict the moment he decided to kill Palpatine after he surrendered and started begging for his life. Then I would have given Anakin Conflict for choosing the greater evil over the greater good. And for good measure I'd of given Palpatine Conflict for his use of Force Lightening. That was a Conflict laden scene.

Triple likes for you!

But Palpatine would definitely not be allowed as a PC in my game...He'd be strictly NPC

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

But Palpatine would definitely not be allowed as a PC in my game...He'd be strictly NPC

True, and all things considered I would feel that Mace was an NPC too, as well as Yoda. Anakin would have been the only PC in that scene to me. So in the grand scheme of things he's the only important one to consider for Conflict, but from a pure mechanics to game perspective that's how I'd view the scene under FFG's rules.

I'm pretty sure that Anakin would have easily crossed gaing 10 Conflict that night.

59 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

But legally he didn't have the proof he needed.

I think that's a pretty shaky assumption to make. Windu didn't say "we don't have proof", he said that the problem was that Palpatine controlled the courts - the issue wasn't a trial, but that any trial would be rigged.

And all of that only matters if we ignore that whole executing-a-traitor thing. We're not dealing with US-style law but with how a Totally-Not-Asimov's Space Roman Empire does things.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

I think that's a pretty shaky assumption to make. Windu didn't say "we don't have proof", he said that the problem was that Palpatine controlled the courts - the issue wasn't a trial, but that any trial would be rigged.

The only thing shaky is your logic. Windu had no proof. He didn't know anything until Anakin told him. He wasn't even 100% sure until he went to confront Palpatine. Remember Mace says "If what you say is true then you would have gained my trust." These are not the words of a man acting on proof of wrongdoing.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

And all of that only matters if we ignore that whole executing-a-traitor thing. We're not dealing with US-style law but with how a Totally-Not-Asimov's Space Roman Empire does things.

I'm not sure you understand how governments, even ancients ones work. Even if we were to go with Rome as our base example (and that's a bad idea due to how long Rome lasted and the different ways in which it was governed) we'd see that Mace's actions would have been illegal. Under the Dicator model, which is really the closest we have to judge, Palpatine would have been above the law and granted the authority to act in the fashion he did. Assuming Rome, what happened in Ep II would have been the proccess by which the Senate elected a Dictator to oversee a military crisis. But that position offered legal protections for actions taken. The only thing the Jedi could have gotten him on, if we continue with this example, as it's the closest we have, the Jedi would have needed to ask the Chancellor to step down publically so that the Senate could see that he is refusing to relignush power. Then the law would be on their side.

As it stands, the Jedi had no proof of treason. They couldn't have since they didn't know it was Palpatine until 5 minutes before they confronted him. You keep calling him a traitor but in most governments a traitor must be formaly delcared before you can execute them. The fact that you keep arguing as if him being a traitor was somehow automatically known without any supporting evidence makes me wonder if you have a clear understanding of how this proccess would work, either in the fictional setting, or the modern or ancient world.

Show some evidence to support your case son.

@Stan Fresh, are you just playing devil's advocate? I'm having a difficult time figuring out what point you are trying to make about Mace Windu and Chancellor Palpatine.

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

@Stan Fresh, are you just playing devil's advocate? I'm having a difficult time figuring out what point you are trying to make about Mace Windu and Chancellor Palpatine.

Ethier that or trolling. I always lean on him trolling since a good devils advocate tends to at least have some semblance of evidence backing their position. He provides little evidence to support their statements and requires us to all just assume his statements are true

As for the point he's attempting to make? He has none. He never really has a point. Most of the conversations I've observed in he has never made a point and I've up front asked him what his point is. And he just ignores it.

Somewhat worse than his compatriot Tramp since Tramp can at least be forced to show evidence.

Proof isn't needed, evidence is. And he had that in the form of a confession made to an officer of the law.

It's really not hard to see my point - that Windu wasn't an assassin. But accusations of trolling are, of course, more fun.

As for Kael's other nonsense: if you'd manage to post without the insults, I'd engage with your comments. But being insulting and mocking towards Tramp, me, or someone else disqualifies you from discourse. You then whine that I'm not addressing your arguments, but that's on you here. Be civil, and you will be heard.

5 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Proof isn't needed, evidence is. And he had that in the form of a confession made to an officer of the law.

Anakin switched sides. There is no proof provided by you that Anakin would have stayed loyal to the Jedi on this matter. Also as a point of reference, proof and evidence are synonyms. They mean the same thing. So if you say evidence is needed then proof is needed. They're the same thing.

Quote

proof

pro͞of/

noun

1. 1.

   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

   "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

   synonyms:

   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification,

5 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

But accusations of trolling are, of course, more fun.

I call them as I see them dude. Provide a logical, fact based argument, as opposed to what you are currently doing and I'd grant you the respect you so crave. So long as you continue to act the part of a troll I'll treat you as a troll.

5 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

But being insulting and mocking towards Tramp, me, or someone else disqualifies you from discourse.

If you were really going to do that you'd have stopped responding to everyone else, since most of us have mocked both you and Tramp. Or did you somehow miss the 2 pages of post wherein folks posted in a fashion similar to how Tramp post. Your beef seems to be with me personally. Which is cool, because I honestly don't care, but don't pretend like this is how you'll be with everyone that mocks you and Tramp being as how you clearly have responded to folks who mock and insult you and Tramp.

5 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

You then whine that I'm not addressing your arguments, but that's on you here.

You are thinking of someone else since I've yet to say anything about you not addressing my points.

5 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Be civil, and you will be heard.

Based on the number of Likes I've generated from this thread so far I think I've been plenty heard.

9 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

…he's a Sith Lord, and he orchestrated the Clone Wars for his benefit, and did a bunch of other dark dark evil stuff, so from our perspective, Palpatine really deserved to die. But still, Windu is making a case for doing something that is of dubious moral and legal substance—respectively, executing an opponent (not the Jedi way), and killing the current Supreme Chancellor.

I always liked this quote: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

There is a certain difference between killing someone in battle and executing someone afterwards. A certain price to pay as well.

5 hours ago, Kael said:

Anakin switched sides. There is no proof provided by you that Anakin would have stayed loyal to the Jedi on this matter. Also as a point of reference, proof and evidence are synonyms. They mean the same thing. So if you say evidence is needed then proof is needed. They're the same thing.

That is btw a very troubling thing about the english language for non-native speakers. The lack of a good word for indicators of evidence, instead of evidence. It is especially troubling in context that the portrayal of the american justice system does not differ between evidence and not-yet-evidence, as those seem to be called circumstantial evidence, which would not considered a proof for anything, just make it worth to look for actual proof.

Personally I find this incredible hard to get around the english concept of the basic word "evidence" as it is so loose und uncertain and not as absolute as it "should" be.

Always with the excuses, huh. Think things through, man. It's not "personal", it's that your behavior is particularly bad.

5 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Proof isn't needed, evidence is. And he had that in the form of a confession made to an officer of the law.

It's really not hard to see my point - that Windu wasn't an assassin.

What confession did he have?

And if that attempt at killing was not assassination, what was it?