19 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

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

Uh hu .... sure.

37 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

They left you no choice

If you're someone with a conscience, then that's exactly true.

And that Palpatine framed the Jedi is beyond debate. The movies make that perfectly clear.

I imagine the force works on a bit of a moral imperative. It doesn't hold much relativity or situational awareness.

Acting in anger is dark, no matter how righteous.

Murder is dark, no matter how deserved.

Initiating violence is dark, no matter how evil the target.

The Jedi accepts that sometimes darkness is necessary. The foolhardy Jedi sees it necessary more frequently. The wise Jedi tries to minimize the situations where it has to be done.

Exactly. If it would be any other way than avoiding the darkside would be a piece of cake, but where to draw the line between utilitarian practicality and a hippy attitude is hard. Stay to detached from the rest of the world and megalomaniac and corrupt senators ruin the galaxy for everyone, act to harsh and violent and a megalomaniac and deeply corrupted senator calls out an empire and crowns himself as its emperor.

Man, the jedi really screwed up both ways, right?

In my mind that is what makes them interesting.

In addition many Jedi did take a more cloistered approach and ignored the outside. Others just did diplomacy or exploration and risked less.

It is mainly the Knights active in the galaxy that have the most risk.

I also agree that Yoda could have received Conflict. We don't need a dramatic, dark strings piece playing while the PC has an emo moment to tell that he or she got conflict. Or whatever @Stan Fresh was trying to get at.

Yoda is a boss at being Disciplined. So he would be able to shoulder that Conflict easily with his superior mental fortitude. No time for crying or even for being sad...he's got a job to do, and that job is assassinating the newly appointed emperor of the galaxy. He might be conflicted about it, but he is disciplined enough to go through with his plan anyway.

Don't get me wrong—I think Yoda made the best choice by going after Palpatine. But that doesn't mean that, as a PC, he wouldn't be getting Conflict. To argue that he didn't start the fight is insane. What did he think he was going there to do, talk the Emperor into stepping down and reinstating the office of Chancellor? He went there to kill the guy. He even stopped his escape and egged him on to fight!

Again, IMO that was the right decision made in the moment. But it would have been Conflict-worthy, nonetheless.

5 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Again, IMO that was the right decision made in the moment. But it would have been Conflict-worthy, nonetheless.

I think this is the important thing to take away from this discussion: sometimes, doing the right thing means you'll take a bit of Conflict.

And sometimes thinking to do the right thing, will end with you screaming limbless while lava slowly burns your body and the pain, shame and hate will never stop again for the next 25 or so years.

Just now, SEApocalypse said:

And sometimes thinking to do the right thing, will end with you screaming limbless while lava slowly burns your body and the pain, shame and hate will never stop again for the next 25 or so years.

Otherwise known as a lottabit of Conflict

That is, in my mind, the best use of the morality system, to encourage the hard choices. To make the characters struggle with what is necessary and what is merely convenient.

Now if only I was good at using it in practice...

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

I also agree that Yoda could have received Conflict. We don't need a dramatic, dark strings piece playing while the PC has an emo moment to tell that he or she got conflict. Or whatever @Stan Fresh was trying to get at.

So when I write repeatedly that it doesn't have to be a big moment, your takeaway is the exact opposite of that?

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

So when I write repeatedly that it doesn't have to be a big moment, your takeaway is the exact opposite of that?

I guess I'm still a little unclear on what form this "on screen" indication has to take. I would like to understand! If not a dark character moment or a musical hit, and if not a simple physical plot point/occurrence for which a GM would award Conflict in-game, then what?

3 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

I guess I'm still a little unclear on what form this "on screen" indication has to take. I would like to understand! If not a dark character moment or a musical hit, and if not a simple physical plot point/occurrence for which a GM would award Conflict in-game, then what?

No, I'm saying that there should be any evidence of a moral struggle, of an internal conflict, on the screen *at all* before saying the act incurs Conflict because the character goes through a moral struggle. And I don't see it with Yoda in that scene. Not with how he handled the guards, not with coming to confront Palpatine. And in neither case does he initiate violence. So why should he take Conflict for initiating violence?

It's not that I have particularly high standards for what would incur Conflict, it's that even minimum standards aren't met by the actions in the scene in question.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

No, I'm saying that there should be any evidence of a moral struggle, of an internal conflict, on the screen *at all* before saying the act incurs Conflict because the character goes through a moral struggle. And I don't see it with Yoda in that scene. Not with how he handled the guards, not with coming to confront Palpatine. And in neither case does he initiate violence. So why should he take Conflict for initiating violence?

It's not that I have particularly high standards for what would incur Conflict, it's that even minimum standards aren't met by the actions in the scene in question.

You simply can't expect that from a movie that wasn't written with Conflict in mind.

Also .....evidence of a moral struggle? (it's worth pointing out that no where in the book does it ever mention that Conflict be determined by evidence of moral struggle) What's that look like? Asking for evidence of a moral struggle is exactly what people mean when they say you are asking for a big moment. The mere statment on your part eliminates the subtle of emotions. Not everyone shows their emotions. Jedi are trained not to. Most Jedi in the PT movies aren't going to show this evidence because they had it drilled in them since childhood how not to show emotional struggle. So Yoda lacking any form of evidence of a moral struggle is going to be par the course for anyone who has practiced controlling their emotional displays.

Also dude he initiates violence. Claiming that he didn't is ludicrous and undermines your credibility. You claim that you don't have high standard but you do. Evidence of moral struggle? That's high evidence from a movie that wasn't written with moral struggles in mind. Claiming that Yoda didn't initate combat? That's high evidence when he clearly did. Giving a pass on Pre emptiving deciding to murder someone, that's high evidence requirment. You require a high level of evidence for it to be Conflict worthy. A lot higher than the book recommends.

I disagree with your assessment there, Kael. Yoda was not initiating Combat, but rather was specifically trying to stop a known evil from committing further evil. He had a moral obligation to act against Palpatine. Therefore, there was no moral Conflict. He was acting fully within the tenets of the Code and within the Will of the Force.

39 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

No, I'm saying that there should be any evidence of a moral struggle, of an internal conflict, on the screen *at all* before saying the act incurs Conflict because the character goes through a moral struggle. And I don't see it with Yoda in that scene. Not with how he handled the guards, not with coming to confront Palpatine. And in neither case does he initiate violence. So why should he take Conflict for initiating violence?

It's not that I have particularly high standards for what would incur Conflict, it's that even minimum standards aren't met by the actions in the scene in question.

I dunno, Yoda looks pretty sad, put-out, or just plain angry for most of these scenes. I would call that evidence of internal conflict.

4 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

I dunno, Yoda looks pretty sad, put-out, or just plain angry for most of these scenes. I would call that evidence of internal conflict.

He's downright pissed, complete with angry finger pointing. And a finger point from Yoda is worth like, 1.666666... finger points from anyone else.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree with your assessment there, Kael. Yoda was not initiating Combat, but rather was specifically trying to stop a known evil from committing further evil. He had a moral obligation to act against Palpatine. Therefore, there was no moral Conflict. He was acting fully within the tenets of the Code and within the Will of the Force.

That's a pretty tenuous argument there man!

You're claiming

1) to know the Will of the Force (which is impossible, unless you're the author of the story), and also claiming that

2) Yoda's action were within the Will of the Force (by way of arguing that the Jedi Code is always within the will of the Force), and also supposing that

3) it is the Will of the Force that Yoda not gain any conflict, which is a game-mechanical resource.

If you can give any evidence for these 3 suppositions, I would be heartily impressed.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree with your assessment there, Kael. Yoda was not initiating Combat, but rather was specifically trying to stop a known evil from committing further evil. He had a moral obligation to act against Palpatine. Therefore, there was no moral Conflict. He was acting fully within the tenets of the Code and within the Will of the Force.

Show me in the description for Conflict where it says that what you're doing is justified when combating stop evil? Does it say that? No. You know why? Because you're held to a higher standard, even when dealing with evil and trying to prevent evil. Yoda walks in and tosses those guards. They are doing their job as guards. Yoda doesn't know if they are evil. He doesn't know if they are loyal. He doesn't know if they are there collecting a pay check. He doesn't know if they are even aware they are being duped. He knows nothing about them. He doesn't even know if he can turn them against the Emperor. To avoid Conflict you're required to at least try though and Yoda doesn't do that. He doesn't try.

The guards raise their weapons, but that's their job. That isn't starting combat though. They didn't attack him right away. A Jedi (whom they've been told tried to kill him earlier) walks in and they are supposed to just stand there? For all that they know Yoda is the bad guy.

Yoda starts the fight. They don't. No where in that scene do you see them actually start the fight. They just respond to a Jedi walking in on the person they have been sworn to protect.

Yoda starts that fight. The only reason to claim he doesn't is to use our out of game knowledge of the Star Wars world to justify Yoda's actions after the fact. Which is not how the Conflict system is designed to work.

1 minute ago, awayputurwpn said:

That's a pretty tenuous argument there man!

You're claiming

1) to know the Will of the Force (which is impossible, unless you're the author of the story), and also claiming that

2) Yoda's action were within the Will of the Force (by way of arguing that the Jedi Code is always within the will of the Force), and also supposing that

3) it is the Will of the Force that Yoda not gain any conflict, which is a game-mechanical resource.

If you can give any evidence for these 3 suppositions, I would be heartily impressed.

Actually, the Power of the Jedi sourcebook (D20) has several interesting dissertations attributed to Jedi Master Odan Ur on that subject I could quote you, but it will have to wait since it's at home and I'm at the library (my only access to the internet). but if you want, I can bring it with my the next time I come and provide them later.

1 minute ago, Kael said:

Show me in the description for Conflict where it says that what you're doing is justified when combating stop evil? Does it say that? No. You know why? Because you're held to a higher standard, even when dealing with evil and trying to prevent evil. Yoda walks in and tosses those guards. They are doing their job as guards. Yoda doesn't know if they are evil. He doesn't know if they are loyal. He doesn't know if they are there collecting a pay check. He doesn't know if they are even aware they are being duped. He knows nothing about them. He doesn't even know if he can turn them against the Emperor. To avoid Conflict you're required to at least try though and Yoda doesn't do that. He doesn't try.

The guards raise their weapons, but that's their job. That isn't starting combat though. They didn't attack him right away. A Jedi (whom they've been told tried to kill him earlier) walks in and they are supposed to just stand there? For all that they know Yoda is the bad guy.

Yoda starts the fight. They don't. No where in that scene do you see them actually start the fight. They just respond to a Jedi walking in on the person they have been sworn to protect.

Yoda starts that fight. The only reason to claim he doesn't is to use our out of game knowledge of the Star Wars world to justify Yoda's actions after the fact. Which is not how the Conflict system is designed to work.

Actually, yes, it is. The Guards moved in to attack Yoda. And those Guards knew exactly who their Master was and what he was doing. They saw him do much of it. Therefore they are just as complicit. If Yoda did not act, then he is knowingly allowing Evil to be committed which is certainly a Conflict worthy action. So, yes, Yoda was doing the morally right thing in going after Palpatine. Palpatine has already shown himself to be a threat to the Jedi and the galaxy as a whole. He has already attacked the Jedi and wiped out most of them. Yoda had an obligation to stop him if at all possible using whatever means possible short of using the Dark Side to do it.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

The Guards moved in to attack Yoda.

No they did not. Watch the gif. They change stance but they don't actually attack.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

And those Guards knew exactly who their Master was and what he was doing. They saw him do much of it. Therefore they are just as complicit.

Proof? Like seriously provide proof. Because I don't recall seeing those guards around when Paplptine reveals his true self to Anakin. I don't see them around when he's plotting most of the Clone Wars. I don't see them anywhere near him when he's doing Sith stuff. And it would be very sloppy of Palaptine to have them around when he's plotting to rule the galaxy.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

If Yoda did not act, then he is knowingly allowing Evil to be committed which is certainly a Conflict worthy action.

Acting doesn't require attacking. Or rather it doesn't require resorting to violence first. Yoda resorts to violence first. He's obligated to act, he's not obligated to be violent. He opted to be violent as his method of acting. Acting with violence to stop an evil still gets you Conflict. It just nets you less Conflict than you would have gotten from not acting at all.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

So, yes, Yoda was doing the morally right thing in going after Palpatine. Palpatine has already shown himself to be a threat to the Jedi and the galaxy as a whole. He has already attacked the Jedi and wiped out most of them. Yoda had an obligation to stop him if at all possible using whatever means possible short of using the Dark Side to do it.

Sure, but he should only resort to violence if other, less violent means fail first. If you want to avoid gaining Conflict of course. Now I'm not saying that Yoda is wrong for going with violence first. I would have too. But the rules on Conflict require that Yoda have at least attempted the non violent route first. Yoda doesn't do this. We can justify it, but just because we can justify not doing it doesn't mean that he doesn't gain Conflict.

Also using whatever means possible to stop the dark side is kinda how you gain Conflict in this system. Stop Palpatine, sure. Go all violent as your go to way of doing that? No.

Yoda isn't wrong. But not being wrong doesn't mean you are Conflict free. Avoiding Conflict is supposed to be hard. If Yoda as a PC wanted to do that he would have needed to find a method that would have made violence a last resort. That would have been harder, to be sure. But that's the entire point.

14 minutes ago, Kael said:

No they did not. Watch the gif. They change stance but they don't actually attack.

Proof? Like seriously provide proof. Because I don't recall seeing those guards around when Paplptine reveals his true self to Anakin. I don't see them around when he's plotting most of the Clone Wars. I don't see them anywhere near him when he's doing Sith stuff. And it would be very sloppy of Palaptine to have them around when he's plotting to rule the galaxy.

Acting doesn't require attacking. Or rather it doesn't require resorting to violence first. Yoda resorts to violence first. He's obligated to act, he's not obligated to be violent. He opted to be violent as his method of acting. Acting with violence to stop an evil still gets you Conflict. It just nets you less Conflict than you would have gotten from not acting at all.

Sure, but he should only resort to violence if other, less violent means fail first. If you want to avoid gaining Conflict of course. Now I'm not saying that Yoda is wrong for going with violence first. I would have too. But the rules on Conflict require that Yoda have at least attempted the non violent route first. Yoda doesn't do this. We can justify it, but just because we can justify not doing it doesn't mean that he doesn't gain Conflict.

Also using whatever means possible to stop the dark side is kinda how you gain Conflict in this system. Stop Palpatine, sure. Go all violent as your go to way of doing that? No.

Yoda isn't wrong. But not being wrong doesn't mean you are Conflict free. Avoiding Conflict is supposed to be hard. If Yoda as a PC wanted to do that he would have needed to find a method that would have made violence a last resort. That would have been harder, to be sure. But that's the entire point.

Nope. Yoda was obligated to destroy the Sith. The Sith were the greatest threat to the Galaxy. and were mortal enemies of the Jedi seeking to wipe them out. Palpatine had already taken violent action against the Jedi. Yoda was under no moral obligation to "talk it out". He did have a moral obligation to put a permanent end to Palpatine's rule. And that meant destroying Palptaine once and for all. Therefore, Violence was the only answer. to not even attempt to do so would mean allowing Palpatine to cause untold suffering. So no, using violence to stop evil when there really is no other option is not conflict worthy. And this is what Yoda faced. Violence really was his only option to stop the evil of Palpatine. And therefore, no Conflict.

55 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. Yoda was obligated to destroy the Sith

While I may disagree with Yoda being obligated to destroy the Sith I would like to point out that even if such an obligation were true, it would have no bearing on Conflict gains. Such an obligation wouldn't negate you gaining Conflict.

56 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The Sith were the greatest threat to the Galaxy. and were mortal enemies of the Jedi seeking to wipe them out.

Also no bearing on whether or not one gains Conflict. It is not an excuse to not gain any.

57 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Palpatine had already taken violent action against the Jedi. Yoda was under no moral obligation to "talk it out".

That was hours ago. That one act isn't carte blanche for violent actions against him. And while Yoda is under no moral obligation to talk it out he does have to at least try a non violent means first. That maybe talking it out. That may be something else entirely. So long as non violence was his first action.

59 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Therefore, Violence was the only answer. to not even attempt to do so would mean allowing Palpatine to cause untold suffering.

Luke proves that violence isn't the only way to defeat the Sith. He defeated them with love. Violence wasn't the only answer. It was jus the easiest.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

So no, using violence to stop evil when there really is no other option is not conflict worthy. And this is what Yoda faced. Violence really was his only option to stop the evil of Palpatine. And therefore, no Conflict.

Violence was not his only option. It was only the easiest option. Luke proves to us that it isn't. And there are plenty of Legends material that also highlights this concept. Yoda doesn't even explore the idea. Which is sad.

But all things considered, he could have gained Conflict. To argue that violence was the only way is to ignore the fact that violence wasn't how the Sith, or Palpatine, was actually defeated. Violence against the Sith failed time and time again to stop them. So maybe the Jedi are wrong on the matter. Being how it was non violence that ultimately stops them.

I really am getting a kick out of tramp changing his views to suit his arguments in each conversation on these forums. Here, he talks about yoda having a moral obligation and in the other hotly debated topic, he says that jedi are not creatures of morals.

It can't be both.