7 minutes ago, Kael said:

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.

Given that he hasn't played the game at all, that's pretty much explicitly the case.

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Given that he hasn't played the game at all, that's pretty much explicitly the case.

While I may not have had the opportunity to play yet (and not from a lack of wanting to), I have read the rules thoroughly multiple times. In fact, I am currently doing so once again, cover to cover so that I can be well versed in them. Yes, I would love to get more "practical" application of this system, and hopefully, if I can get the game I want going, I will. But that does not mean I don't good grasp how the rules themselves are written nor what they mean.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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

If you say so. But you don't ever address the actual points people make. You just repeat (and then bold) "he's evil he needs to die" without actually considering the content of the counter lodged against you.

15 minutes ago, Kael said:

If you say so. But you don't ever address the actual points people make. You just repeat (and then bold) "he's evil he needs to die" without actually considering the content of the counter lodged against you.

Actually Kael, I did consider the content of the "counter" lodged against me. But I don't agree with it and it doesn't invalidate my points. There are times when you can avoid violence. There are times when you can't. You have to know the difference. Yoda was specifically in a situation where violence was necessary. If he didn't at least try to put an end to Palpatine, then he would have knowingly been allowing Palpatine to commit many more atrocities. In that one situation, he had no other choice. There was no peaceful option with Palpatine. Yoda knew this, Luke knew this. Vader knew this. Luke's only "out" as others put it was that all he really needed to do was turn Vader back to the Light, and Vader would kill Palpatine. Yoda didn't have that option in RotS. Yoda's only option to stop Palpatine was to face him in mortal combat and hopefully kill him. Any other option would result in the annihilation of the Jedi, and the galaxy being plunged into decades of tyranny.

As long as the Sith existed, they have repeatedly attacked the Republic and tried to conquer it. This was also Palpatine's goal. He succeeded. HE succeeded through guile and treachery, and manipulation. There was no peaceful solution there. He had to be stopped. Either he had to die or the galaxy would fall into an unending age of darkness and tyranny. To protect the galaxy, Yoda had to fight Palpatine. A Jedi must not allow Evil to flourish. It is one of the core tenets of the Jedi.

If Palpatine hadn't been actively trying to wipe out the Jedi, if he had not been actively usurping the Republic, if he had not been actively trying to plunge the galaxy into tyranny, then no matter what his "moral compass", Yoda wouldn't have needed to fight him. IT was Palpatines actions that necessitated Yoda going to confront him in battle, not his morality (or lack thereof).

I don't think it's reasonable to assume Yoda and the Jedi particularly had time to talk about it; the moment he revealed that he was a Sith lord to Ana a very tight clock was running. If the Jedi came he would kill them, if the Jedi didn't come then he would invent some other offence, trigger order 66 and raid the place himself. While ideally maintaining a neutral stance and stopping palpatine would have been possible, the beauty of the plan was that by starting the clone wars the Jedi were basically tied down entirely and moved only according to his will.

I don't really think there is much pointcontinuing; Vader ultimately killed him after discovering his compassion, so I don't believe that stopping the sith does exclude killing them just Vader was in a very unique position where palpatine more or less trusted him to act like the dejected lacky he was. I still believe that the only way of defeating palpatine was to kill him; just by the time he was aware of him being a Sith Lord, it was too late for most of the Jedi order who would have been executed on the battle field. Just Yoda forsake his pride in admitting he could never defeat Sidious as he was and instead decided to retreat into nothingness, waiting for Anaikins son or daughter to come along to exploit the one weakness the sith still had.

1 minute ago, LordBritish said:

I don't think it's reasonable to assume Yoda and the Jedi particularly had time to talk about it; the moment he revealed that he was a Sith lord to Ana a very tight clock was running. If the Jedi came he would kill them, if the Jedi didn't come then he would invent some other offence, trigger order 66 and raid the place himself. While ideally maintaining a neutral stance and stopping palpatine would have been possible, the beauty of the plan was that by starting the clone wars the Jedi were basically tied down entirely and moved only according to his will.

I don't really think there is much pointcontinuing; Vader ultimately killed him after discovering his compassion, so I don't believe that stopping the sith does exclude killing them just Vader was in a very unique position where palpatine more or less trusted him to act like the dejected lacky he was. I still believe that the only way of defeating palpatine was to kill him; just by the time he was aware of him being a Sith Lord, it was too late for most of the Jedi order who would have been executed on the battle field.

Exactly.

51 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

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.

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.

Now you're just trying to twist things around.

I didn't twist anything around Tramp, I used the same logic you are using to accentuate the asinine reasoning you are employing.

This makes me question your previous statements about the hypothetical situation in which you are stuck with making a bad decision (using the dark side in a single instance) or choosing not to save someone's life. You've said countless times that nobody should ever be placed into a situation where their only options are worth Conflict or "bad" because it is "railroading" players but right now you just said that sometimes you only have one option to do something bad, when something far worse would happen. This is a complete contradiction, you are saying two opposite things as if you believe them both.

Error

Error

Does not compute

Does not compute

Does not compute

inOIFNIEOY23804H2ITHIQ803Y02UPO3Y5T82Y38IHIY2385U10U4IONFSKHIOEFNEKLFNIOH

*catches fire*

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

I agree, it was the right choice in the moment. But it wasn't necessarily the only "right" choice. It was probably the best choice, and certainly the most obvious one. The only wrong choice would have been to stand by and do nothing.

Still, whether or not the choice Yoda made was in line with the Jedi Code (I understand you could make the case for it either way), it involved premeditated assassination. This entails conflict. And as a player, I would have shouldered that Conflict proudly.

Thing is, taking a life is never a "good" choice. It is only ever a bad choice...but it can be the least bad choice. Nevertheless, just because it's the "best" moral choice possible, doesn't mean you get away without any Conflict.

7 hours ago, Kael said:

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

I've not asked for evidence of Conflict. I've asked for evidence of moral struggle or moral conflict - which Star Wars was written with in mind, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I don't know if you keep misreading what I've wrote (I already made that distinction clear), or if you're doing this deliberately, but until you start responding to what I've actually written, as opposed to this fanciful interpretation you have going on, there's really no point in considering your posts any further.

6 hours ago, Kael said:

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

Yoda resorts to violence first.

They changed their stance to attack. Yoda defends himself against that attack.

That his reactions allow him to preempt the execution of their strike does not undermine the morality of his actions.

Not to be a jerk but I think a better question is does it matter what options there were?

This argument comes down to whether you believe in Objective Dark or Relative Dark.

Relative Darkists argue that one's conflict is largely measured in context. In this specific case because Palpatine had and would continue to cause so much damage, a relatively small infraction like initiating violence is overlooked because there is a huge net gain over the long run. This leads to higher paragons and clearer black and white decisions.

This can be a valid view for your game and can lead to an action packed game with bold heroes and foul villains.

Objective Darkists argue one's conflict in large measure is determined by the actions on their own. In this case even though Palpatine is terrible, initiating violence is still a small tear in the force. While in the long run justified, Yoda still did something Dark to fight Dark. This leads to Jedi who gain conflict more and struggle to make sure each drastic action is worth it, and more gray in the choices.

This can be a valid view for your game and can lead to a game that explores moral choices and focuses on the costs of safety and righteousness.

The issue seems to be that each side works on an unprovable, and ultimately irrelevant premise, because while it matters a lot to how an individual game runs, each one will appeal to different groups.

There might be a point where we have to agree that we cannot agree on whether Yoda was a pure paragon following the force with every step or a flawed being making a desperate play risking his own enlightenment against a greater evil.

So this thread is now just a bunch of people hurling insults at Tramp. Real classy. Calling someone evil and a sociopath over a game of make believe.

Tramp, these people aren't interested in talking anymore, if they ever were. They're going to keep twisting your words to insult you.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There are times when you can't.

This statement right here highlights your lack of understanding with the point of the Morality system of this game, and for Star Wars in general. So long as you think this you will never really be using the Conflict system that this game designed.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There was no peaceful solution there.

This statement right here highlights how you haven't been paying attention to the counters we've lodged. No one said that in order to avoid Conflict the solution needed to be peaceful. There is a difference between non peaceful solution and resorting to violence. You continually translate "don't use violence first" to somehow mean peaceful or non action or not killing him at some point. No one has argued that the other opition open to Yoda was peaceful. Just that he needed to at least explore and consider them. He did not.

It's not that you disagree, it's that you really aren't addressing the things we say.

42 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I've not asked for evidence of Conflict. I've asked for evidence of moral struggle or moral conflict - which Star Wars was written with in mind, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Yeah we've said it time and time again, but there is more to moral struggle than physical evidence.

43 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I don't know if you keep misreading what I've wrote (I already made that distinction clear), or if you're doing this deliberately, but until you start responding to what I've actually written, as opposed to this fanciful interpretation you have going on, there's really no point in considering your posts any further.

Dude ..... I stopped considering your post a long time ago. You're logic is always flawed. You often fight a ghost argument. The logic you apply to support your arguments is inconsistent

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

I don't think it's reasonable to assume Yoda and the Jedi particularly had time to talk about it; the moment he revealed that he was a Sith lord to Ana a very tight clock was running.

Yes, that's kinda the point. The Morality system of this game puts you under a time crunch to see if you can do the right thing, the right way, under pressure. Was there time for a deep debate? Likely not. But there was time to explore other options. Or at least talk about them. They could have gone over non assassination ideas on the hyper drive jump back to the Jedi temple. But they didn't.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

If the Jedi came he would kill them, if the Jedi didn't come then he would invent some other offence, trigger order 66 and raid the place himself.

Having bad options doesn't remove the Conflict deciding to assassinate someone generates. Even if Palpatine would have come at them another way had they not straight to kill mode it doesn't remove their obligation to attempt non murdery methods.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Just Yoda forsake his pride in admitting he could never defeat Sidious as he was and instead decided to retreat into nothingness, waiting for Anaikins son or daughter to come along to exploit the one weakness the sith still had.

Yoda had no intention of ever fighting again. Remember he refused to train Luke and had to be talked into it. He didn't retreat so that one day he could exploit the one weakness the Sith had. He ran and hid. By the standards that others have applied to Yoda, that justify him attempting to murder the Emperor, by the time we see Yoda again in V he should be a darksider since he spent all those decades doing nothing about the Sith and had no plans to do anything about them.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

So this thread is now just a bunch of people hurling insults at Tramp. Real classy. Calling someone evil and a sociopath over a game of make believe.

No one's called him a sociopath and evil over a game of make believe. For someone who gets a bit uppity when he feels his post aren't being read right you sre do take a lot of liberities with other peoples post.

56 minutes ago, Rossbert said:

There might be a point where we have to agree that we cannot agree on whether Yoda was a pure paragon following the force with every step or a flawed being making a desperate play risking his own enlightenment against a greater evil.

Considering he doubted his own decisions, as shown in the tv shows and movies through what he says, it's blatantly obvious he wasn't the pinnacle of "morally just". He did the best he could, for sure but to say Yoda didn't make mistakes, morally challenging mistakes even, would be ignorant of everything he says & a lot of what he does.

36 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

So this thread is now just a bunch of people hurling insults at Tramp. Real classy. Calling someone evil and a sociopath over a game of make believe.

Tramp, these people aren't interested in talking anymore, if they ever were. They're going to keep twisting your words to insult you.

I don't agree with hurling insults just because of a disagreement in viewpoints. I didn't see anyone call Tramp "evil" so I can't comment on that (could you quote that post for me cuz I didn't see it) but regarding the comment from 2 pages ago, Dunefarble was not calling Tramp a sociopath but saying that the line of reasoning that Tramp is using is the type that sociopaths use, to show that you cannot justify any action you take simply because you're "the good guy".

4 hours 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.

There's the post in question. Note how nobody said "Tramp is a sociopath".

There is an obvious implication that the logic Tramp is using is the type that sociopaths use.

Pointing out holes in logic and comparing those logical fallacies to similarly flawed logical fallacies are not the same as namecalling.

He's putting Tramp in the category of thinking like a sociopath. That IS calling him a sociopath.

If I said you think like a child molester, would you be like "sure, good point, no harm no foul".

15 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

He's putting Tramp in the category of thinking like a sociopath. That IS calling him a sociopath.

If I said you think like a child molester, would you be like "sure, good point, no harm no foul".

If I was talking about my character being sexually attracted to minors? Yeah, that character is thinking like a child molester.

25 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

He's putting Tramp in the category of thinking like a sociopath. That IS calling him a sociopath.

If I said you think like a child molester, would you be like "sure, good point, no harm no foul".

So you're just right on ignoring the entire point of his post then, that I explained to you just now?

Tramp's logical reasoning is not sound, that is the entire point of what Dunefarble said. It's got so many holes in it, it's Han Solo.

See what I did there? I likened two things based upon similar concepts that they share. One is literal holes, another is figurative holes, not the exact same but both are holes.

What was said wasn't a baseless accusation of who Tramp is as a person. What was said was a metaphor to explain illogical, faulty reasoning.

A good guy is not good because he's called the good guy. With that line of reasoning, anyone's a good guy as long as they are called such. It's a justification for any type of behavior, no matter how evil, because surely they aren't evil if they are called good.

A good guy is a good guy because of his actions reflecting his good nature. The Jedi are generally good, though just like humanity in real life, none of them are perfect and they make mistakes. They have the sense to recognize that one cannot justify any action or behavior and get away with it, there must be limitations otherwise they would be no different from the people they claim are their enemies. Sometimes the lines between the two sides are blurred, to show, as I said, Jedi are not perfect beings that can do no wrong.

*edit*

Regarding the second line in your post there, if I was acting in a way that would signify that, I'd appreciate that you pointed it out to me because I'd want to correct that ASAP.

Also I'm gonna go ahead and ask again if you could find the post where someone called Tramp "evil". You claimed that was said but I have yet to find the post.

1 hour ago, Dunefarble said:

If I was talking about my character being sexually attracted to minors? Yeah, that character is thinking like a child molester.

The post switches between addressing the character and Tramp.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Also I'm gonna go ahead and ask again if you could find the post where someone called Tramp "evil". You claimed that was said but I have yet to find the post.

He's called a dark sider, among other things. That's calling him evil. And no, it's not about the character.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Also I'm gonna go ahead and ask again if you could find the post where someone called Tramp "evil". You claimed that was said but I have yet to find the post.

I think someone jokingly called him a "True Sith." Maybe it was that?

I have seen a bit of ad hominem stuff going on here, to be honest. And it makes me uncomfortable. I can empathize with how frustrating it can be to not feel understood. But taking things to a personal level can get things ugly real fast, and undermines one's actual points.

I think it'd be good if we dialed back the accusations.

7 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

The post switches between addressing the character and Tramp.

...I don't see it. Tramp belongs to the Jedi Order? Or has dealing with Zeltrons?

11 hours 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.

It gets even better as the force has told Yoda its will plentiful and harsh. Everyone dies is the will of the force and Yoda reluctantly agree's to that and let go of his fear from losing everyone to the war. He explicitly goes against the will of the force when he tries to assassinate Palpatine, just to make sure that the force did not change its mind and that his foreseen destiny is really the path he must go. Because he really does not want to went this path. TCW's "Voices", "Destiny" and "Sacrifice" is rather clear about that and gives Yoda a vision of Luke and Palpatine's 25-ish year later defeat.

"To the end we are coming now. No longer certain, that one ever does win a war, I am. For fighting in battles, the bloodshed, already lost we have. Yet open to us a path remains, that unknown to the Sith there is. Through this path victory we may yet find, not victory in the clone wars, but victory for all time." - Yoda, 19 BBY

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

He's putting Tramp in the category of thinking like a sociopath. That IS calling him a sociopath.

If I said you think like a child molester, would you be like "sure, good point, no harm no foul".

For someone who stated he didn't like "fanciful interpations" of his own post you seem pretty comfortable doing the same to others.

Though I suppose accusing everyone of insulting someone else is a good way to avoid addressing the holes in the arguments you make.

BTW why is anyone feeding the troll? No one here able to think like a troll to realize how dumb it is to get into a discussion about becoming a sociopathic mass murder if you try to think like one?

Sometimes inaction is appropriate.