2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. There were only two options.

You are wrong. The movies show this.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And the violence was already initiated by Palpatine so, Yoda had no moral obligation to "negotiate".

We never said Yoda had to negotiate. You seem to have a very narrow view of what to do here.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Palpatine had to be stopped, the sooner the better.

The movies show you are wrong on this.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, yes, violence did stop him. It took Vader killing him to stop him and put an end to his schemes.

You are wrong. Violence did not stop him. Violence ended his life. Luke stopped him without violence. You are confusing the method of the characters demise for how he the character was actualy stopped. Without turning Vader Luke would have failed. Violence didn't turn Vader. Vader was they key.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As long as Palpatine lived, there was no stopping him. He was too powerful and too evil.

And yet violence is not what actually defeated him. You seem to be lost on the narrative point at which Palpatine had been defated and stopped. Palpatine was stopped when Luke turned Vader. Not when Vader killed him.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

And then? You take the conflict of breaking your Order's beliefs for the sake of the greater good. You accept the responsibility of your actions, because they were the best you could do and the only way you can sleep at night. You don't live in a bubble of 'well, morality doesn't count here, because...'

Because he's evil, because she's Zeltron, because I'm a good person so my actions are always justified.

That's what sociopaths are.

Yoda's actions were in the defense of the Galaxy. He was well within his mandate to go after Palpatine. Not simply because he was evil. But because of his actions. Palpatine was actively attacking the Jedi order. He was actively usurping power from the Republic. He was actively causing evil to occur, actively spreading the pall of the Dark Side across the galaxy. Yoda had no other option.

2 minutes ago, Kael said:

You are wrong. The movies show this.

We never said Yoda had to negotiate. You seem to have a very narrow view of what to do here.

The movies show you are wrong on this.

You are wrong. Violence did not stop him. Violence ended his life. Luke stopped him without violence. You are confusing the method of the characters demise for how he the character was actualy stopped. Without turning Vader Luke would have failed. Violence didn't turn Vader. Vader was they key.

And yet violence is not what actually defeated him. You seem to be lost on the narrative point at which Palpatine had been defated and stopped. Palpatine was stopped when Luke turned Vader. Not when Vader killed him.

No. Palpatine was stopped when Vader killed him. Vader was saved when Luke turned him. But Luke did not stop Palpatine, Vader did. It was violence that stopped Palpatine. If Vader had not killed Palpatine, but rather simply took the blasts for Luke, Palptatine would have simply killed Vader and then finished off Luke. The only way to stop Palpatine was to kill him. Vader knew that, which is why he did it. Yoda knew that, which is why he tried to do it.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda had no other option.

You are wrong.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Palpatine was stopped when Vader killed him.

You are wrong

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda's actions were in the defense of the Galaxy. He was well within his mandate to go after Palpatine. Not simply because he was evil. But because of his actions. Palpatine was actively attacking the Jedi order. He was actively usurping power from the Republic. He was actively causing evil to occur, actively spreading the pall of the Dark Side across the galaxy. Yoda had no other option.

Weird... I totally thought it was "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." Not "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. You know... unless he's super evil." (Unless super evil is he?)

And there was also that "You will find only what you bring in." Like violence.

"War not make one great." That's a favorite.

"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." Yeah... that's an absolute if I've even heard one.

And the most telling, "Your weapons, you will not need them."

Further canon material that references the Clone Wars really brings to the fore that the Jedi made a huge mistake when fighting the war against the Separatists. All of their actions were just bringing them closer to the dark side.

One of the most important parts of the whole saga is the evolution of Yoda - how he learns what he did wrong between Episode III and Episode V when he begins to train Luke.

He accepted why he failed, and in a way, it was his teachings that allowed Luke to do what he did. Throw down his lightsaber and proclaim "I am a Jedi, like my father before me."

Luke's actions redeemed Vader as he found the love within him for his son, led to Palpatine's death. Without Luke, Vader would not have been redeemed - which was the single point at which Palpatine was stopped. Without Vader, the Emperor was nothing.

3 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Weird... I totally thought it was "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." Not "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. You know... unless he's super evil." (Unless super evil is he?)

And there was also that "You will find only what you bring in." Like violence.

"War not make one great." That's a favorite.

"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." Yeah... that's an absolute if I've even heard one.

And the most telling, "Your weapons, you will not need them."

Yoda was acting in defense. It may not have been self defense, but it was in defense. Specifically, it was in defense of the Jedi Order. It was in the defense of the Republic. It was in the defense of the Galaxy. Paplatine was an active threat to all of these. He was actively trying to destroy the Jedi. He was actively toppling the Republic. He was actively plunging the galaxy into darkness, enslaving it and twisting it to his will. He had to be stopped. In order to protect the galaxy, Palpatine had to be killed.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Further canon material that references the Clone Wars really brings to the fore that the Jedi made a huge mistake when fighting the war against the Separatists. All of their actions were just bringing them closer to the dark side.

Best quote from this?

Ezra: But Master Yoda, how are we supposed to win if we don't fight back?!

Yoda: Win? Hmph. Win. Hm. How Jedi choose to win, the question is.

Tramp is still at Ezra's level of understanding.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Further canon material that references the Clone Wars really brings to the fore that the Jedi made a huge mistake when fighting the war against the Separatists. All of their actions were just bringing them closer to the dark side.

Yes, they were wrong to fight the war against the Separatists. They were manipulated into that. However, Yoda was not wrong to try and kill Palpatine. That was necessary. He had an obligation to do so.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda was acting in defense. It may not have been self defense, but it was in defense. Specifically, it was in defense of the Jedi Order. It was in the defense of the Republic. It was in the defense of the Galaxy. Paplatine was an active threat to all of these. He was actively trying to destroy the Jedi. He was actively toppling the Republic. He was actively plunging the galaxy into darkness, enslaving it and twisting it to his will. He had to be stopped. In order to protect the galaxy, Palpatine had to be killed.

These are the kind of rationalizations that deserve Conflict being awarded.

Just now, Kael said:

These are the kind of rationalizations that deserve Conflict being awarded.

Like... a lot, tbh.

2 minutes ago, Kael said:

These are the kind of rationalizations that deserve Conflict being awarded.

But Jedi aren't creatures of morals, you see. (We're having a similar argument in the other thread.)

Just now, Kael said:

These are the kind of rationalizations that deserve Conflict being awarded.

By that reasoning, Jedi should never take a life, should never fight. There are time when you have to fight. There are times when you have to kill. I know because I have been to war. Luckily I didn't have to use my weapon (if it did I would have had to destroy my equipment because I was being overrun). But as a soldier, I knew that there was always the possibility that I would have to take a life.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

By that reasoning, Jedi should never take a life, should never fight.

Not as their first option, no. Yoda had other options, he just chose not to use them.

"We're keepers of the peace, not soldiers."

I do think it's funny that the Sith had the same argumentfor wiping out the Jedi. 'They were an aberration, they deny an entire side of the Force, they dedicated their entire Order to the destruction of the Sith...' By their own view, they had the moral imperative to kill the Jedi. There was NO OTHER OPTION.... to their way of thinking. That was what made them Sith in the First Place. Every single Sith didn't become Sith for the EvilLuls, they did it because they thought they knew better and were taking the only possible option.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

By that reasoning, Jedi should never take a life, should never fight.

Actually no. I never argued that. I just said that it can not be the first or only option.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There are times when you have to kill. I know because I have been to war.

Irrelevant. This has no bearing on how the Morality system constructs the use of violence for this game. This system morality assumes that there is always a non kill option. And even if there isn't you should at least double check and make sure there isn't one. The fact that you've been to war does not really matter when discussing how this setting seems to indicate what should be done.

Don't confuse your real world experience with a make believe moral system

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. There wasn't. Palpatine was the culmination of the Sith's plans for domination of the galaxy. Palpatine was the ultimate Evil. George Lucas specifically patterned him and his rise to power after Adolf Hitler. He was pure, unadulterated evil with two goals: the total annihilation of the Jedi Order, and total domination of the Galaxy in the service of the Dark Side. You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

What happened to, "there's always another way"? Just quoting you.

Things I learned are OK from Tramp Graphics:

It's ok to attack anyone who even remotely threatens you. That guy on the subway raised his arm in my direction... time to pull out the 9mm concealed carry.

Assassinating a governmental leader because his rule threatens your way of life is the proper response. His rise to power was wrong and I have no proof, he's turned the public opinion against me so 2 assassination attempts will obviously fix that.

Negotiations and peace treaties are worthless. The only way to end conflict is with swift, decisive bloodshed.

The Jedi did nothing wrong. Nevermind peacekeepers joining a war, not following up on where they got their manufactured soldiers, lying to the government they operate under about the diminishing of their special powers that they use to protect citizens & see future dangers with, ignoring the reasoning from a few Jedi who made great arguments against war but did so with actions that suited crazy people, ignored the complete confession of Dooku solely on the fact that he's not on your side, appointing one of your own to spy on the supreme chancellor during wartime because you're suspicious of his activities, making an arrest attempt on said person when they have no evidence and the only report of a single witness about his true nature, a witness of which that you don't even fully trust, lying to a young boy about his parentage in an attempt to get him to kill his father, attempting to justify your lie when he finds out afterwards, arguing further that the only solution to the conflict is for the kid to kill his father.

2 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

What happened to, "there's always another way"? Just quoting you.

I'm out of likes, so.... I like this!

12 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Not as their first option, no. Yoda had other options, he just chose not to use them.

Yoda had no other options because any other choice he could have made would have resulted in far worse happening. And because he failed to kill Palpatine, far worse did happen. Palpatine had to be stopped for the sake of the galaxy. The only way that was ever going to happen was if Palpatine died. This turned out true because it took Vader killing him to stop him. Yoda had an obligation to protect the populous of the galaxy from Palpatine's tyranny. To do that he had to kill him and he failed. As a result the galaxy was subjected to over twenty years of tyrannical rule under the thumb of the Emperor, a rule that ended only when Vader turned against Palpatine and killed him.

5 minutes ago, Kael said:

Actually no. I never argued that. I just said that it can not be the first or only option.

Irrelevant. This has no bearing on how the Morality system constructs the use of violence for this game. This system morality assumes that there is always a non kill option. And even if there isn't you should at least double check and make sure there isn't one. The fact that you've been to war does not really matter when discussing how this setting seems to indicate what should be done.

Don't confuse your real world experience with a make believe moral system

There are times when it is your only option, when every other option would result in far worse happening. Then yes, Violence is the only option. You need to know when that is. Yoda did.

3 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

What happened to, "there's always another way"? Just quoting you.

Don't take that out of context. There is always a way to do the right thing. Sometimes that "right ting" is taking a life. It is unfortunate, but it is often necessary in order to protect others. The trick is knowing when that is.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Things I learned are OK from Tramp Graphics:

It's ok to attack anyone who even remotely threatens you. That guy on the subway raised his arm in my direction... time to pull out the 9mm concealed carry.

Assassinating a governmental leader because his rule threatens your way of life is the proper response. His rise to power was wrong and I have no proof, he's turned the public opinion against me so 2 assassination attempts will obviously fix that.

Negotiations and peace treaties are worthless. The only way to end conflict is with swift, decisive bloodshed.

The Jedi did nothing wrong. Nevermind peacekeepers joining a war, not following up on where they got their manufactured soldiers, lying to the government they operate under about the diminishing of their special powers that they use to protect citizens & see future dangers with, ignoring the reasoning from a few Jedi who made great arguments against war but did so with actions that suited crazy people, ignored the complete confession of Dooku solely on the fact that he's not on your side, appointing one of your own to spy on the supreme chancellor during wartime because you're suspicious of his activities, making an arrest attempt on said person when they have no evidence and the only report of a single witness about his true nature, a witness of which that you don't even fully trust, lying to a young boy about his parentage in an attempt to get him to kill his father, attempting to justify your lie when he finds out afterwards, arguing further that the only solution to the conflict is for the kid to kill his father.

Now you're just trying to twist things around.

You'd be a terrible Jedi.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

You'd be a terrible Jedi.

He'd most certainly be playing as a dark sider in most games that's for sure.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There are times when it is your only option, when every other option would result in far worse happening.

This and many other comments leads me to believe you don't honestly get the intent of the Morality system for this game. And I suspect you are also not understanding key pieces of the arguments others are making.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Don't take that out of context. There is always a way to do the right thing. Sometimes that "right ting" is taking a life. It is unfortunate, but it is often necessary in order to protect others. The trick is knowing when that is.

More rationalization that leads one down the path to the darkside!!!

Not at all. I simply don't agree with their arguments. I understand them fine.