7 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

It's not vigilantism. Yoda isn't a private citizen. He's a wrongly-accused space cop on his last day on the job, and he's on a mission!

Pretty sure a summary execution without a trial is murder, regardless of whether or not you're a cop.

4 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

No, I read what was there. You can't reasonably claim that a line in which a character makes an excuse for his lack of moral action isn't in indication that there was a lack of moral action.

The point is that the lack of moral action doesn't have to be picked out as a bad thing by the movie: it can funny, or sad, or even justified (like say, you with old wrinkly Chancellors) thing. Yoda's was funny.

49 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Really? For knocking out the dudes who raise (well, lower, what with your stature) their weapons at you? It's not like Yoda made the first violent move. He just walks into the room.

Why, yes, there seems to be an entry about this in the Conflict table. "Resorting to Violence as the First Solution". That is exactly what happened in the scene, so it's reasonable to think that he took a couple points of Conflict for it. It's also reasonable to think it's possible his GM hand-waived it or missed an opportunity to dish out Conflict. I know I've done that before depending on situations.

Side note, I need to be less lenient with Conflict... most of my players just kind of waffle back and forth with it.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Why, yes, there seems to be an entry about this in the Conflict table. "Resorting to Violence as the First Solution". That is exactly what happened in the scene, so it's reasonable to think that he took a couple points of Conflict for it.

"This penalty can be mitigated if the PC is the one being attacked."

Let's not leave out the relevant parts.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

"This penalty can be mitigated if the PC is the one being attacked."

Let's not leave out the relevant parts.

Sure, sure, except moving your service weapon to a ready position & attacking are two separate things. One would actually have to be attacked first for that Conflict to be mitigated.

2 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Pretty sure a summary execution without a trial is murder, regardless of whether or not you're a cop.

Well, I was making a bit of a joke. But according to the rules, murder (as it relates to Conflict) is killing a helpless opponent. Which isn't the case here.

And Yoda is a military officer whose superior committed treason. Imagine the US President secretly orchestrating a war against the US, colluding with the enemy nation, and then sending troops into the FBI headquarters and an adjacent kindergarten and having everyone there gunned down. That's what Palpatine did.

When one of the few surviving military officers tries to stop him by killing him, I have a very, very, very hard time seeing this as murder and not as a defending someone's life against an imminent threat.

2 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The point is that the lack of moral action doesn't have to be picked out as a bad thing by the movie: it can funny, or sad, or even justified (like say, you with old wrinkly Chancellors) thing. Yoda's was funny.

Okay; but no matter how it's presented, it's still presented. In other words: there's an indication of it on screen.

8 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Sure, sure, except moving your service weapon to a ready position & attacking are two separate things. One would actually have to be attacked first for that Conflict to be mitigated.

You don't have to be shot at to be attacked. See: Yoda with the clone troopers on Kashyyyk. They are trying to kill him, but he was ready for them. Same here.

There are standing orders to kill Jedi. Yoda doesn't have to wait until a blaster bolt leaves a barrel to defend himself. That's absurd, and I highly doubt it's the intention of the rules.

4 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

When one of the few surviving military officers tries to stop him by killing him, I have a very, very, very hard time seeing this as murder and not as a defending someone's life against an imminent threat.

If that person did not feel even slightly conflicted over having to take that action, I would be more concerned for his mental state than anything else.

I think Yoda is one of the most conflicted characters in the series. From the climax of RotS to his introduction in ESB, I easily see him taking tons of Conflict, not only from fighting Palpatine, but from realizing how his actions and inactions affected the lives of trillions of beings throughout the galaxy. Then he runs away and hides in a swamp. Decades of doing nothing would be a very tough choice (thereby earning Conflict)

I would not consider Yoda a "Light Side Paragon" within the mechanic of this game when he's training Luke. And that's why he's a great character.

If you need to justify Yoda's unfailing, 99 point, good-ness, maybe he just constantly rolls well and always ticks up a point or two in Morality.

16 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Okay; but no matter how it's presented, it's still presented. In other words: there's an indication of it on screen.

Ok. The indication Yoda took Conflict was him bodily flinging the Royal Guard into the wall for humorous effect.

11 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Ok. The indication Yoda took Conflict was him bodily flinging the Royal Guard into the wall for humorous effect.

How so?

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

How so?

The comedic sociopathy, same as my previous example of humorously letting a robbery take place.

16 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

If that person did not feel even slightly conflicted over having to take that action, I would be more concerned for his mental state than anything else.

Why? From what I understand, many soldiers and LEOs are not conflicted about taking lives. It's not always PTSD and the bottle for everyone who has to shoot someone in the line of duty.

16 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

If you need to justify Yoda's unfailing, 99 point, good-ness, maybe he just constantly rolls well and always ticks up a point or two in Morality.

Yeah, no, I think Yoda totally failed the Jedi and the Republic, and let fear and dogma guide his actions. He's a deeply flawed character. I certainly don't believe him to be unfailing, and I don't think I've given any reason for you to make that assumption. I've only talked about his use of the Force against people in one specific scene; I don't think I've mentioned anything else about him at all, really.

That dude is wrong on so many levels, it's a wonder Luke made it out alive.

3 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The comedic sociopathy, same as my previous example of humorously letting a robbery take place.

Sociopathy? He knocked out two attackers, he didn't go Dexter on them. That's a bigger stretch than a pair of Yoga pants.

20 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Sociopathy? He knocked out two attackers, he didn't go Dexter on them. That's a bigger stretch than a pair of Yoga pants.

Suckerpunching the Royal Guard as you walk into a room with their charge unannounced is sociopathy, yes. They're just guards, dude. They're protecting the guy who runs their government. Yoda could have just as easily Mind Tricked them into leaving and locking the door behind them, but he instantly went for the violent option. Hence, Conflict.

37 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Why? From what I understand, many soldiers and LEOs are not conflicted about taking lives. It's not always PTSD and the bottle for everyone who has to shoot someone in the line of duty.

Thinking twice or feeling conflicted about killing a person and having PTSD are different.

37 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I certainly don't believe him to be unfailing, and I don't think I've given any reason for you to make that assumption. I've only talked about his use of the Force against people in one specific scene; I don't think I've mentioned anything else about him at all, really.

I should have indicated I was speaking more generally about the character.

As for bashing a couple minions without warning, yeah, I'd drop 1 Conflict point on a PC. Which is essentially nothing. No reason for a player to get worked up over one measly bit of Conflict.

On 2/14/2017 at 9:23 AM, DaverWattra said:

In some earlier versions of SWRPG (the first d20 edition, and also in D6 from what I understand?) hurting living beings with the Force counted as Dark Side use. This changed in Saga Edition, probably largely as a result of some of the offensive Force use we saw from Light Side characters like Obi-Wan.

But there's still something that feels borderline-Dark Side or "un-Jedi" to me about constantly whacking someone with Move. I like the idea that it's in the nature of the Force that using it to directly harm a person is taking a sort of risk, and this isn't the kind of attack you want to be making frequently.

In this system, the Dark Side mechanic is very forgiving. This strikes me as an opportunity to bring in this picture of the Force without cramping players' style too much. One could say that using a Force power to do wound damage causes one Conflict each time you do it... enough that it isn't a good idea to do it constantly, if you want to be a light sider, but a limited enough penalty that it's fine to do it once or twice a session.

Thoughts?

Sorry, Daver et al., I'm late to the conversation. But I just wanted to pu it out there in the holonet that I do this in my campaign.

Any time you use the Force to harm, or in a way that would cause fear in someone, is going to inflict a minimum of 1 Conflict at my table.

A couple reasons for this:

1.) in my experience the Morality system is useless unless you... wait for it... use it. And it never gets used using the vanilla guidelines. They're too lenient. So I tighten them up, and it generates much more Jedi-like behavior from players who want to mimmick that philosophy, and everyone else hovers in the grey-zone.

2.) It boggles my mind how ppl will use the examples of Jedi - yes, sometimes even Paragons - doing things as justification that the subject action therefore couldn't have generated Conflict.

My stance is, most Jedi probably generate Conflict all the time with their actions, however it's the long term management of that behavior as well as the "True Good Deeds" that allow them to stay on the light side as well as become paragon.

Doing this doesn't make the game unplayable - it requires that those who profess that they want to be a Jedi actually behave like it on a regular basis.

19 hours ago, Kael said:

People bring this up as if it proves anything. But who said Yoda didn't gain any Conflict during those scenes? During those uses of the Force. Remember Conflict is not the same as dark side usage. Yoda's Morality can likely soak up raking up some Conflict from that fight. The assumption here seems to be that Yoda would never do anything to gain Conflict. But that wouldn't be true. Yoda would have done a lot to gain Conflict over his long life span. He is likely better at avoiding situations where he likely does gain it but I have my doubts that he always avoided it.

The inherent idea that some Conflict should be gained from the use of the Force to harm others is sound. A lot of previous Star Wars lore seems to support the idea that light siders don't use the Force to harm other people. So I don't see a thematic problem with awarding 1 or 2 points of Conflict when PC's do it. It would actually kinda force them to make hard choices during combat.

The idea has merit. I think it could work.

I disagree with your assessment of Yoda potentially getting Conflict for his actions during that battle. First off, he was facing hostiles which were attacking him. He did not attack first, so no Conflict there. Secondly, against the guards, there is no reason to assume that he did any potentially lethal damage to them. Using the Bind power with its Movement and Master upgrades, as well as Strain upgrade could easily put the guards out of the fight without actually injuring them, and no need for using DSPs either so no Conflict there. By RAW, Royal Guards are Nemesis class characters not Minions, after all. Then using Bind and its Movment upgrade again onPalpatine to push him back toppling head over heals over his desk and chair also leaves Palpatine unharmed, but temporarily immobile, given that he's in a jumbled mess on the floor. As the battle continues, Yoda never uses any Dark powers, so no Conflict there either. There is nothing in that battle to suggest Yoda should have earned even one Conflict.

I tend to think of Jedi and other Force adherents as "doctors" for the force.

In an ideal universe, all live according to their roles and the Force flows uninhibited. However, that is not this galaxy where there is rage, hate, greed, corruption, fear, despair, and other blockages and tears in the Force.

The Jedi seek to understand the flow and will of the Force, some seeing imbalance seek to address the matter. At times they have to take drastic action, in the manner of a surgeon cutting a body to address a further issue, causing pain, distress and damage to deal with an issue.

The Jedi should not seek conflict, but they also will in many cases refuse to shy away from small hurts to address a larger one. It is a dangerous and painful road, but that is why they are few and so strict on their behaviour. They often have to do harm to avoid greater harm, so they accept the conflict for the greater good.

However, they also have very strong rules and traditions to avoid doing harm when unnecessary, in part because they know they have less room for error than if they did nothing.

If violence is (with their resources, including information) inevitable, it is best to strike first and decisively, even if there is damage to the Living Force for their aggression. It is not desirable, but sometimes required. To do less might allow more darkness into the Galaxy.

They bear the costs so others less gifted don't have to.

It is the burden of the Knights.

Look, I'm just going to put out there that a lot of people are simply overthinking the moral issue.

Palpatine is unadulterated evil, he cannot be reasoned with and his only desire is to create an empire of near infinite suffering, enslave every race in the galaxy and exterminate every single Jedi. You cannot simply deal with a Sith Lord softly. You can compare him to a president but that is innaccurate; as he would be a president that sacrifices children with torture at will force lightning if he felt that would secure him the vote in the next general election, and he probably did torture a great many children to make up the backbone of his inquistion.. As such, regardless of any other consideration going to directly confront sidious with the intent of killing him isn't a evil act in of itself; in confronting Sidious with multiple masters was probably the only wise choice windu made throughout the entire prequel trilogy.

While Yoda did use the force on the guards, they were directly between him and stopping the greatest evil this galaxy had seen. His manner in which he dealt with them was very precise with a push giving exactly the amount of force needed to knock out both guards.

He probably did gain conflict throughout the fight due to the severity of the duel; both Sidious and Yoda really gave their all and were flipping pips back and fourth; just Yodas strain theshold had gave out first and he was left to flee with the skinnest of marjins.

I imagine most Jedi, Yoda included, were between 40-70 morality due to the mental tole the war took on them. I wouldnt' say he got conflict from killing the clone troopers particlarly as they were instruments of the great evil; but he felt a great conflict from all the Jedi dying and that ultimately weakened him I feel.

7 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Suckerpunching the Royal Guard as you walk into a room with their charge unannounced is sociopathy, yes. They're just guards, dude. They're protecting the guy who runs their government. Yoda could have just as easily Mind Tricked them into leaving and locking the door behind them, but he instantly went for the violent option. Hence, Conflict.

I have no reason to think the guards are weak-willed. And even if they are - expecting Palpatine to sit idly by while Yoda is distracted by mind-tricking the guards is not realistic.

Yoda did not start the violence, he defended himself against attackers that he has every reason to believe are about to kill him. They follow orders from the guy who had rooms full of children murdered. Expecting restraint from them is insane.

Ya'lls definition of attackers starting violence is extremely loose. So loose I see no point in debating it.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

I have no reason to think the guards are weak-willed. And even if they are - expecting Palpatine to sit idly by while Yoda is distracted by mind-tricking the guards is not realistic.

Yoda did not start the violence, he defended himself against attackers that he has every reason to believe are about to kill him. They follow orders from the guy who had rooms full of children murdered. Expecting restraint from them is insane.

A mind trick takes a moment, and Yoda is strong in the Force. Hell, Palpatine might have sent them away himself. He very clearly was looking forward to the fight.

And they weren't attackers, not yet. Yoda did a "preemptive strike," aka he attacked first. And If Yoda could have smashed them against the wall at any time, why didn't he wait until they were more clearly going to attack him without orders from Palpatine?

1 hour ago, Benjan Meruna said:

A mind trick takes a moment, and Yoda is strong in the Force. Hell, Palpatine might have sent them away himself. He very clearly was looking forward to the fight.

And they weren't attackers, not yet. Yoda did a "preemptive strike," aka he attacked first. And If Yoda could have smashed them against the wall at any time, why didn't he wait until they were more clearly going to attack him without orders from Palpatine?

A mind trick takes seconds. that's long enough for Palpatine to kill half the Jedi Council.

And they were already attacking him. Seriously, after seeing children murdered on the guy's orders you want to claim Yoda had a moral duty to wait for them to pull the trigger against him, too? Morality, and moral concerns, don't reset with each scene shift. Prior events inform what follows. You don't start back at zero just because you entered a new scene.

You're engaging in pretzel logic to justify nonsense.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

You're engaging in pretzel logic to justify nonsense.

So are you but you don't hear the rest of us complaining about it.

33 minutes ago, Kael said:

So are you but you don't hear the rest of us complaining about it.

No, it's because there's nothing to complain about.

16 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

It's not vigilantism. Yoda isn't a private citizen. He's a wrongly-accused space cop on his last day on the job, and he's on a mission!

Really? For knocking out the dudes who raise (well, lower, what with your stature) their weapons at you? It's not like Yoda made the first violent move. He just walks into the room.

Try to walk as wrongly-accused space cop into the whitehouse and fight your way to the president to assassinate him. Blame the secret service for raising their weapons against you. They left you no choice
Your friends and juniors went in you before, got close, but ultimately failed. Which makes the "wrongly-accused" part a little shaky too.