On 13.6.2017 at 4:36 PM, AK_Aramis said:

Not fuzzy at all - killing is wrong. Killing the helpless, no matter why, is a 10 point morality hit. The force can heal most anything short of amputations, and normal medicine can make up for those.

The only conflict free ways I can see are a quick kill in self-defense while Anakin can still defend himself (and then, no Vader, and the OT looks different), or taking the broken and battered Anakin and trying to save his life.

The Jedi Code is essentially a parallele of Buddhism's approach. Lucas has even said this in interviews.

The Jedi are essentially Space-Buddhist Sohei. Individuals who willingly risk their own elightenment to help others progress towards it.

There are "3 Poisons" in Buddhism: Anger, Ignorance, and Attachment. They are to be cured and/or avoided at all costs.
There are 5 rules to live by in Buddhism:

1. "Do not kill." (Unintentional killing is considered less offensive)
2. "Do not steal." (Including misappropriating someone's property)
3. "Do not engage in improper sexual conduct." (e.g. sexual contact not sanctioned by secular laws, the Buddhist monastic code, or by one's parents and guardians)
4. "Do not make false statements." (Also includes pretending to know something one doesn't)
5. "Do not drink alcohol." (Also applies to other intoxicants.)

These 8 principles are pretty much at the heart of the Jedi Code:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force. ^[4]

Nothing says "killing is wrong" like a signature weapon completely lacking a stun setting.

I don't think defying the Jedi council made Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan any less of a candidate for an ideal Jedi, quite the contrary it may make them even better Jedi. That's tantamount to saying that if you disagree with Congress you're a bad American, which is obviously wrong. Also if Yoda isn't an ideal Jedi, who is? When 900 years old I reach, look as good, I will not.

On 6/15/2017 at 3:42 PM, Cifer said:

Nothing says "killing is wrong" like a signature weapon completely lacking a stun setting.

There's actually a really cool reason why a lightsaber can only kill and maim.

Jedi are supposed to be guardians of peace. Sometimes, to do that job, you need a weapon. But if science is sufficiently advanced to create a "perfect" nonlethal weapon*, as it is in Star Wars, carrying around such a weapon means you can use it with no fear of killing anyone. You can just stun them all and sort it out later. On the other hand, if your weapon of choice can only deal permanent damage, you have to be absolutely certain before you use it that all other avenues of conflict resolution have been exhausted. The Jedi having only lightsabers to fall back on for violent conflict resolution means they are strongly encouraged to develop other skills to deal with conflicts; the lightsaber is literally a weapon of absolute last resort, to be used only if and when there is no other option but to leave maimed and killed bodies behind. It's the perfect symbol of the Jedi ethos: when we absolutely must, we can defend ourselves and others with the deadliest of force, but only when we absolutely must. Or to quoth John Sheridan, "Never start a fight, but always finish it."

* Pretty much all "nonlethal" weapons we have today are more correctly termed "less-lethal," as the amount of damage required to subdue a person is scarily close to the amount of damage required to kill a person, and the line fluctuates wildly from individual to individual. For example, the taser voltage that would instantly drop one angry 200-pound person could kill another angry 200-pound person with, say a heart condition, and the voltage that would drop the latter wouldn't even phase the former. A "perfect" nonlethal weapon would be Star Wars stun settings, or better yet a Star Trek phaser. One setting just takes the fight out of someone and dazes them for a bit, a higher setting knocks them out, a still-higher setting kills or injures them.

40 minutes ago, ErikModi said:

There's actually a really cool reason why a lightsaber can only kill and maim.

Jedi are supposed to be guardians of peace. Sometimes, to do that job, you need a weapon. But if science is sufficiently advanced to create a "perfect" nonlethal weapon*, as it is in Star Wars, carrying around such a weapon means you can use it with no fear of killing anyone. You can just stun them all and sort it out later. On the other hand, if your weapon of choice can only deal permanent damage, you have to be absolutely certain before you use it that all other avenues of conflict resolution have been exhausted. The Jedi having only lightsabers to fall back on for violent conflict resolution means they are strongly encouraged to develop other skills to deal with conflicts; the lightsaber is literally a weapon of absolute last resort, to be used only if and when there is no other option but to leave maimed and killed bodies behind. It's the perfect symbol of the Jedi ethos: when we absolutely must, we can defend ourselves and others with the deadliest of force, but only when we absolutely must. Or to quoth John Sheridan, "Never start a fight, but always finish it."

* Pretty much all "nonlethal" weapons we have today are more correctly termed "less-lethal," as the amount of damage required to subdue a person is scarily close to the amount of damage required to kill a person, and the line fluctuates wildly from individual to individual. For example, the taser voltage that would instantly drop one angry 200-pound person could kill another angry 200-pound person with, say a heart condition, and the voltage that would drop the latter wouldn't even phase the former. A "perfect" nonlethal weapon would be Star Wars stun settings, or better yet a Star Trek phaser. One setting just takes the fight out of someone and dazes them for a bit, a higher setting knocks them out, a still-higher setting kills or injures them.

Too bad for them that they try to do it in a world that has easy access to totally safe stun weaponry--including lightsabers with the appropriate crystals. With that in mind, the only reason for a Jedi to resort to lethal force is because he's comfortable with killing and maiming his opponents.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

Too bad for them that they try to do it in a world that has easy access to totally safe stun weaponry--including lightsabers with the appropriate crystals. With that in mind, the only reason for a Jedi to resort to lethal force is because he's comfortable with killing and maiming his opponents.

Uh, no. The whole point is that a lightsaber doesn't have a stun setting. If you draw this weapon with the intent to use it, someone will be seriously injured at the very least. So, as a Jedi, you have to be absolutely certain before drawing your lightsaber that violence is the only way to end this particular problem. Drawing a weapon is admitting that all other paths of conflict resolution have failed, and now people's lives are on the line.

Some of the EU books talk about "Form Zero," which is basically about knowing when to even use your lightsaber in the first place. One of the stories explaining this concept, I believe from "Jedi vs. Sith," talks about Mace Windu having crashed on an alien planet, slogging his way through the swamp towards the two local tribes he'd come to negotiate with, and being surrounded by warriors from one side pointing weapons at him. Master Windu put his hand on his lightsaber and said "It's your decision." The warriors backed down and escorted him to the village. Mace Windu knew that if he had to draw his weapon, he would kill people, and told the warriors in no uncertain terms that while he didn't want this to get violent, if it did he was more than capable of handling it. If Mace Windu had a perfect stun weapon, it would have been far easier to just knock all the warriors out and keep walking (since this is, you know, Mace "Bad MotherJedi" Windu we're talking about here). Jedi should always strive for peaceful resolutions to conflicts, and knowing their lighsabers can only kill and maim reinforces that concept. If you must use your lightsaber, it's because you must use your lightsaber. The use of lethal force is reserved for only after every single other non-violent option has failed. Violence, even if it's with stun weapons, is still violence, and still a failure of all other paths of conflict resolution.

@ErikModi

It's an interesting philosophical position, and yet it falls flat because not not having the tools for the correct amount of violence in a situation is almost never a good thing. Yes, a Jedi should always be able to use the peaceful solution. The films and the EU have shown us that is not the case. But do you deny that in those situations where a peaceful solution is impossible, a non-lethal one should be preferred when possible?

Oh man, I nearly forgot about this guy, but Tera Sinube was a pretty good Jedi. He rarely raised his weapon, and instead used his astute cunning, and calming demeanor to settle conflicts and solve mysteries. One of my favorite Jedi from The Clone Wars.

ErikModi's point is actually brought up in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook that WotC published for their RCR product line; said book even has a great sidebar about asking players if they'd still want to play a Jedi but without the lightsaber or Force powers, which is pretty good from separating the players who want to legitimately play an actual Jedi from those only interested in playing quasi-psychic thugs with laser swords.

The fact that the Jedi don't carry stun-only weapons is a deliberate choice on their part, simply so that a Jedi would indeed use violence as a means of last resort, and not fall into the habit of shooting first and asking questions later. If a Jedi's only weapon is one that is probably going to kill someone, then a true Jedi's first reaction won't be "grab my weapon." You see something similar in basic gun safety training with the directive of "never aim your firearm at a person unless you fully intend to shoot them." By not relying upon stun-only weapons, the Jedi have adapted their own take, namely "don't draw your lightsaber unless you are fully invested in killing your opponent," which reinforces that violence is a means of last resort .

The cantina scene in ANH is a prime example of this, with Kenobi doing what he could to resolve the situation peacefully, and only resorting to violence when the two thugs draw their own blasters (if you pay attention, you can hear the sounds of blasters being fired, making it pretty clear they shot first before Kenobi took them down). And when he did use violence, it was quick and decisive, ending the threat to himself, to Luke, and to random bar patrons with precise efficiency.

Mace Windu even tried for a peaceful resolution in AotC, pretty much telling Dooku to stand down while having his lightsaber at the throat of the a heavily-armed bounty hunter to keep that person from immediately drawing weapons. Windu did not run in swinging for the fences, nor did the other Jedi rush in attacking until the Separatist droid forces came rolling in with weapons bared. Your typical player-character probably would have killed Dooku right then and there without any preamble, and not given the leader of the enemy faction a chance at a peaceful surrender.

During the Clone Wars, you had the Jedi leading armies with lightsabers in hand, but they had largely fallen from their intended purpose as keepers of the peace on top of generally entering situations where violence was already a thing due to the presence of enemy forces actively shooting at you.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

The cantina scene in ANH is a prime example of this, with Kenobi doing what he could to resolve the situation peacefully, and only resorting to violence when the two thugs draw their own blasters (if you pay attention, you can hear the sounds of blasters being fired, making it pretty clear they shot first before Kenobi took them down). And when he did use violence, it was quick and decisive, ending the threat to himself, to Luke, and to random bar patrons with precise efficiency.

And yet, he took the guy's arm off rather than stunning him, which would have resolved the situation just as well. I fail to see how that can be seen as the better alternative.

17 minutes ago, Cifer said:

And yet, he took the guy's arm off rather than stunning him, which would have resolved the situation just as well. I fail to see how that can be seen as the better alternative.

Because at the end of the day, the Star Wars setting isn't our world. And trying to enforce modern-day realism or logic onto that setting is an exercise in complete and utter foolishness. At the end of the day, Star Wars is a fairy tale world with sci-fi trappings.

In-setting reasons have been provided as to why the Jedi Order, a monastic cult with religious underpinnngs that raises its members in near-isolation from early childhood, made the decision they did. If you can't accept those reasons, that's on you.

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

ErikModi's point is actually brought up in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook that WotC published for their RCR product line; said book even has a great sidebar about asking players if they'd still want to play a Jedi but without the lightsaber or Force powers, which is pretty good from separating the players who want to legitimately play an actual Jedi from those only interested in playing quasi-psychic thugs with laser swords.

That "great sidebar" was pretentious drivel. By those standards, just about every gamer I know would be uninterested in playing a Jedi since there's no real substance to them beyond Force use and lightsabers. If you disagree, please describe all of the great Jedi in your games that weren't Force Sensitive and didn't use lightsabers. While you're at it, tell me how those characters were "actual Jedi" in any meaningful way.

6 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

ErikModi's point is actually brought up in the Power of the Jedi sourcebook that WotC published for their RCR product line; said book even has a great sidebar about asking players if they'd still want to play a Jedi but without the lightsaber or Force powers, which is pretty good from separating the players who want to legitimately play an actual Jedi from those only interested in playing quasi-psychic thugs with laser swords.

The fact that the Jedi don't carry stun-only weapons is a deliberate choice on their part, simply so that a Jedi would indeed use violence as a means of last resort, and not fall into the habit of shooting first and asking questions later. If a Jedi's only weapon is one that is probably going to kill someone, then a true Jedi's first reaction won't be "grab my weapon." You see something similar in basic gun safety training with the directive of "never aim your firearm at a person unless you fully intend to shoot them." By not relying upon stun-only weapons, the Jedi have adapted their own take, namely "don't draw your lightsaber unless you are fully invested in killing your opponent," which reinforces that violence is a means of last resort .

The cantina scene in ANH is a prime example of this, with Kenobi doing what he could to resolve the situation peacefully, and only resorting to violence when the two thugs draw their own blasters (if you pay attention, you can hear the sounds of blasters being fired, making it pretty clear they shot first before Kenobi took them down). And when he did use violence, it was quick and decisive, ending the threat to himself, to Luke, and to random bar patrons with precise efficiency.

Mace Windu even tried for a peaceful resolution in AotC, pretty much telling Dooku to stand down while having his lightsaber at the throat of the a heavily-armed bounty hunter to keep that person from immediately drawing weapons. Windu did not run in swinging for the fences, nor did the other Jedi rush in attacking until the Separatist droid forces came rolling in with weapons bared. Your typical player-character probably would have killed Dooku right then and there without any preamble, and not given the leader of the enemy faction a chance at a peaceful surrender.

During the Clone Wars, you had the Jedi leading armies with lightsabers in hand, but they had largely fallen from their intended purpose as keepers of the peace on top of generally entering situations where violence was already a thing due to the presence of enemy forces actively shooting at you.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

That "great sidebar" was pretentious drivel. By those standards, just about every gamer I know would be uninterested in playing a Jedi since there's no real substance to them beyond Force use and lightsabers. If you disagree, please describe all of the great Jedi in your games that weren't Force Sensitive and didn't use lightsabers. While you're at it, tell me how those characters were "actual Jedi" in any meaningful way.

I think both of you have valid points and both of you are overselling those points, just like the power of the Jedi source book over sold the point it was trying to make. I think the gist of the message is that if you were the type of person who liked *roleplaying* a monk in D&D, then you'll likely play a Jedi in a way that matches the in universe Jedi ideal. Whereas if the *only* reason you wanted to play a jedi was for the lightsaber and Force, then you will probably play a Jedi that is more in keeping the in universe Sith ideal. The reality is that most fan boys and fangirls (I imagine) want to play a Jedi like a "space paladin" than a "space monk" because the portion of the Jedi's lives we see in the movies are action, high adventure, and Yoda reprimands Luke for wanting excitement adventure a Jedi craves not these things. The point is that most of us would wash out of "real life" Jedi training simply on the basis of playing role-playing games at all. We want to cut scene past the majority of Jedi life, the dull, monotonous, austere majority and just enjoy the exciting action packed bits that "real life jedi" only engage in as a last resort.

So to answer HappyDaze's rhetorical question, if someone played a "force warrior" or matukai adept under RCR for the purpose of playing a mysterious kickass martial artist, then they the meet the letter of the law for what that "great sidebar" says a great jedi is, but they don't meet what I consider the spirit of that side bar meant to say. The sidebar is hyperbole that noone could/should live up to (not if the rpg is going to be profitable)

13 hours ago, Cifer said:

And yet, he took the guy's arm off rather than stunning him, which would have resolved the situation just as well. I fail to see how that can be seen as the better alternative.

Deterrence.

@Stan Fresh

I guess Star Wars was way ahead of its time when it came to proper peacekeeping.

33 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Deterrence.

That's the same argument that Tarkin gives for blowing up Alderaan.

2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's the same argument that Tarkin gives for blowing up Alderaan.

You do you realize you effectively Godwin's Lawed this discussion, right?

42 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's the same argument that Tarkin gives for blowing up Alderaan.

Villains are often twisted mirror images of the heroes.

Also, when violence is called for enough for a Jedi to draw their saber, stunning is often not gonna do enough. Stunning the guys in the cantina could've easily made it escalate into a full-on shoot out or at the very least left two criminals with possible contacts after them now, while someone getting their arm lobbed off is definitely an effective way to stop them from doing something that dumb.

2 minutes ago, Silim said:

Also, when violence is called for enough for a Jedi to draw their saber, stunning is often not gonna do enough. Stunning the guys in the cantina could've easily made it escalate into a full-on shoot out or at the very least left two criminals with possible contacts after them now, while someone getting their arm lobbed off is definitely an effective way to stop them from doing something that dumb.

They were intending to leave the planet anyway. If the baddies are willing to pursue them over interstellar distances over a stunning in a cantina, I don't think a missing arm would stop them. Plus: Wow. If "They might follow us (over ridiculous distances) to get revenge, so I maim them on first encounter" isn't the exact thing an aspiring Sith would say, I don't know what is.

I don't blame Obi-Wan for defending Luke in that situation with the only weapon he had available (I'm assuming he rolled piss-poor on his Influence). But I think it's fair to blame him for only having this one weapon available because it's "elegant".

17 minutes ago, Cifer said:

They were intending to leave the planet anyway. If the baddies are willing to pursue them over interstellar distances over a stunning in a cantina, I don't think a missing arm would stop them. Plus: Wow. If "They might follow us (over ridiculous distances) to get revenge, so I maim them on first encounter" isn't the exact thing an aspiring Sith would say, I don't know what is.

I don't blame Obi-Wan for defending Luke in that situation with the only weapon he had available (I'm assuming he rolled piss-poor on his Influence). But I think it's fair to blame him for only having this one weapon available because it's "elegant".

Regarding elegant... and not as clumsy or random as a blaster... it's pretty darn hard to have collateral damage with a lightsaber, but if you shoot and miss you could hit an innocent bystander. Moreover, the hypothetical revenge could have happened before they left tatooine (I don't believed they had sold Luke's landspeeder yet).

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

Regarding elegant... and not as clumsy or random as a blaster... it's pretty darn hard to have collateral damage with a lightsaber, but if you shoot and miss you could hit an innocent bystander. Moreover, the hypothetical revenge could have happened before they left tatooine (I don't believed they had sold Luke's landspeeder yet).

That assumes the force somehow affects the finesse of a light saber massively more than that of a blaster. Because a 1 metre energy blade that burns anything it simply touches - no actual swinging required - in a crowded bar sounds like a promise of collateral damage to me. Massive amounts of foresight are the only thing that keeps the blade from a bystander who might just stumble into it. Plus, shooting and missing with a stun blaster results in... a stunned bystander. Not good, but somewhat better than a bystander missing an arm, even if the chance of the latter is lower. If you want to stick to fencing to avoid collateral damage, a stun-rod would still be better.

A light saber is a weapon of war, pure and simple. Nothing peace-keepy about it.

6 hours ago, Cifer said:

That assumes the force somehow affects the finesse of a light saber massively more than that of a blaster. Because a 1 metre energy blade that burns anything it simply touches - no actual swinging required - in a crowded bar sounds like a promise of collateral damage to me. Massive amounts of foresight are the only thing that keeps the blade from a bystander who might just stumble into it. Plus, shooting and missing with a stun blaster results in... a stunned bystander. Not good, but somewhat better than a bystander missing an arm, even if the chance of the latter is lower. If you want to stick to fencing to avoid collateral damage, a stun-rod would still be better.

A light saber is a weapon of war, pure and simple. Nothing peace-keepy about it.

this thread has already cited in universe reasons for having a lethal only weapon, if you don't like that take it up with lucasfilm, the comment is ranged versus melee. with a melee weapon the only people at risk are those within melee reach. with a ranged weapon anyone in the direction of fire is at risk, passing in front of or standing behind the target, lightsabers are also a defensive weapon CAN be used to block blaster fire (e.g. you can body guard a non-combatant) or melee weapon, and if a force user with a blaster goes up against a force user with a lightsaber, the force user with the blaster looses. So there are plenty of reasons to go with a lightsaber over any other lethal weapon.

On 17.6.2017 at 8:36 PM, Cifer said:

@ErikModi

It's an interesting philosophical position, and yet it falls flat because not not having the tools for the correct amount of violence in a situation is almost never a good thing. Yes, a Jedi should always be able to use the peaceful solution. The films and the EU have shown us that is not the case. But do you deny that in those situations where a peaceful solution is impossible, a non-lethal one should be preferred when possible?

Disarming is an essential technique with the lightsaber, improved sunder is there for a reason for the arbiter, sun djem is a form one technique. Even with a lightsaber there are plenty of non-lethal options. The lightsaber itself is a purely defensive weapon. Now saber throw can change this, but at its base it is not a weapon that will have an easy time hunting down fleeing people.

Calling the lightsaber a weapon of war is silly, when wars consist of orbital bombardment, concussion rifles, autofire weapons, fighters and tanks.

On ‎17‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 11:02 PM, Cifer said:

And yet, he took the guy's arm off rather than stunning him, which would have resolved the situation just as well. I fail to see how that can be seen as the better alternative.

He was surrounded by criminal scum who would lynch the old man and the farm boy without a second thought. Obi-Wan stated it was a hive of scum and villianry, a port in which no regulation and criminal activity is only kept on a loose leash by the very recent imperial occupation. If Obi-Wan didn't make a strong statement there and then, more oppertunists would have sprung out of the woodwork to rob/murder them. One thing that gets underplayered is that chewie was also watching the crowd, as if he was expecting everything to kick off. Everyone looked, took one look at the man with a lightsaber and the dismembered arm on the floor and went back to their own business, it is debateable whether a less extreme measure would have had the same effect.

That and simply shooting him with a stun bolt wouldn't have been as cool. That in my opinion is just as if not more important given how slow episode 4 was. There needed to be a onscreen demostration of Jedi authority at work to keep the audience hooked. I think being cool is frequently more important then always having the most correct answer to a given situation. After all, i have the rest of my life to be a boring fart, but I spend a lot of my session time planning hiests, plotting to damage the empire and cutting off inquistors arms, thus I probably would have done the same given the situation because I'm one BAMF. XD

1 minute ago, Lordbiscuit said:

That and simply shooting him with a stun bolt wouldn't have been as cool. That in my opinion is just as if not more important given how slow episode 4 was. There needed to be a onscreen demostration of Jedi authority at work to keep the audience hooked. I think being cool is frequently more important then being correct. After all, i have the rest of my life to be a boring fart, but I spend a lot of my session time planning hiests, plotting to damage the empire and cutting off inquistors arms, because I'm one BAMF. XD

And I completely agree with that. It's only when movie jedi can kill when it's cool and RPG jedi should not kill ever because "killing is wrong", when Stormtroopers get killed by the dozens but if you kill the Sith Lord you'll be just like him, that the mental disconnect sets in.