Just now, Cifer said:

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.

Oh I agree completely. I actually feel the fall of Anaikin is one of the thing's the prequels have done much better then the OT, in that it isn't a single action that turns a man to the dark side, but a string of related bad events that erodes empathy until that person's perception of reality gives way. I never really felt that once Luke was in any danger of falling; he might have used some drastic measures but I never felt once that his goal was in doubt, until he unleashed his anger, and even now I still feel that Luke's "i'm going to just let this guy torture me to death" wouldn't have worked unless vader was anyone but his father.

That's the thing that annoys me generally though; that killing a Sith Lord is the wrong thing to do. I don't believe that should be ever be the case unless the character doing the act has already taken on a long quest of revenge to reach that point. I find the more interesting fall being "The repubic is attempting to sign a peace treaty with the empire, your character gets a vision of several worlds on fire and a planet firing a death beam. What do you do?"

This might be too fine a distinction for some folks, but taking down stormtroopers usually revolves around defending oneself from those stormtroopers that are actively shooting at you, and quite frequently are shooting to kill. In that case, cutting them down is acting in self-defense, and as such won't get you Conflict provided you didn't initiate the fight. Same with bisecting a Sith Lord that has been actively trying to kill you for several minutes and is armed with a weapon that can cut you in half quite easily.

Killing somebody that is without a weapon and is literally helpless on the ground before you counts as murder, no matter what justification you put on it or who the person is, be it an innocent child or a Sith Lord with buckets of blood on their conscience. If you're carrying a weapon that can "stun" a person, then the temptation is there to blast them since there's "no consequence," even though in EU lore it's been said that stun weapons have a chance of causing lethal harm, so they're not actually 100% "non-lethal" as some have asserted. Something that's amusingly even reflected in this game's mechanics since Minions and Rivals take all strain/stun damage as wounds, and the GM is within their rights to say that Minions or Rivals wind up killed as a result of being repeatedly attacked with stun-only weapons. As another poster said earlier in this thread, the various "non-lethal" methods of subduing a suspect that law enforcement have available have the very real risk of unintentionally killing their target.

Then again, the notion that a make-believe monastic order has willfully opted for a primarily philosophical approach based upon their belief structure in choosing what weapons to use as a means of reducing instances of "cowboy cop" or "shoot first, ask questions maybe" mentalities is apparently too high-minded of a concept.

Good point about stun weapons possibly causing lasting harm, Donovan! Unless a character has Precise Strike and has thus learned EXACTLY how not to accidentally kill someone when knocking them out, the GM can still rule a Minion or Rival as straight up dead. If you hit someone repeatedly with energy pulses to knock their central nervous system for a loop, then it only makes sense that it could go very wrong at times.

Also good point about executing someone always being Murder as far as Conflict goes. I've had my Jedi PC in an old republic era game do just that to a Sith Warrior we had disabled, and actively told the GM to give me that conflict. Had I managed to kill him in the middle of the fight, no conflict - but that was a straight up execution. Context is very important when assigning conflict, the act of killing by itself doesn't give it (otherwise a Jedi could never kill an animal for food either if context was entirely irrelevant, cause that's still killing/ending a life)

On 2017-06-08 at 7:28 AM, GroggyGolem said:

Now that I think about it, Plo Koon was in several episodes of the Clone Wars and I don't ever recall him having any dark side/emotional weakness shown. He maybe seemed a bit attached to Ahsoka because he was the one who initially brought her to the Jedi order but that's a stretch.

Agreed, and I would add Luminara Unduli.

I

54 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

This might be too fine a distinction for some folks, but taking down stormtroopers usually revolves around defending oneself from those stormtroopers that are actively shooting at you, and quite frequently are shooting to kill. In that case, cutting them down is acting in self-defense, and as such won't get you Conflict provided you didn't initiate the fight. Same with bisecting a Sith Lord that has been actively trying to kill you for several minutes and is armed with a weapon that can cut you in half quite easily.

Killing somebody that is without a weapon and is literally helpless on the ground before you counts as murder, no matter what justification you put on it or who the person is, be it an innocent child or a Sith Lord with buckets of blood on their conscience. If you're carrying a weapon that can "stun" a person, then the temptation is there to blast them since there's "no consequence," even though in EU lore it's been said that stun weapons have a chance of causing lethal harm, so they're not actually 100% "non-lethal" as some have asserted. Something that's amusingly even reflected in this game's mechanics since Minions and Rivals take all strain/stun damage as wounds, and the GM is within their rights to say that Minions or Rivals wind up killed as a result of being repeatedly attacked with stun-only weapons. As another poster said earlier in this thread, the various "non-lethal" methods of subduing a suspect that law enforcement have available have the very real risk of unintentionally killing their target.

Then again, the notion that a make-believe monastic order has willfully opted for a primarily philosophical approach based upon their belief structure in choosing what weapons to use as a means of reducing instances of "cowboy cop" or "shoot first, ask questions maybe" mentalities is apparently too high-minded of a concept.

I think part of the problem is the fact that the real world framework Lucas used, to create the Jedi code, is at it's core, a pacifist philosophy, which does come into conflict (no pun intended), when they are running around killing people. I mean, the Jedi consider themselves "The Guardians of Peace and..was it Justice, or Order in the Galaxy" ? I forget which Ben said at this point. That job description does tend to put one in a position where conflict and violence is, while not guaranteed, definitely has a higher probability.

So then, as you and I have mentioned, you run into the philosophical dissonance of "peaceful space monks", running around cutting people to bits, and most people, in the modern day think "Ok hold on a second there...." And when you couple that with the typical gamer mentality, that is frequently referred to as "murder-hobos", it does cause some problems that end up being debated ad naseum about what a "true" Jedi is, and they should behave, and what is wrong/right about their behavior.

And while I can appreciate the debate part of it, such as the "killing a helpless person (in this case Anakin), or letting him slowly burn to death while you watch, instead of putting him out of his agony " debate of what is right/wrong, ultimately it is a LOT of stuff that has been added on by other people, not the original creator, to flesh out the gaping hole of new material for 30 odd years. And given how many different people, with different moralities and philosophies threw their hat into the mix, understandably, you have a very muddled, mixed up, conflicting mess, that doesn't hold up to real world scrutiny.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

This might be too fine a distinction for some folks, but taking down stormtroopers usually revolves around defending oneself from those stormtroopers that are actively shooting at you, and quite frequently are shooting to kill. In that case, cutting them down is acting in self-defense, and as such won't get you Conflict provided you didn't initiate the fight. Same with bisecting a Sith Lord that has been actively trying to kill you for several minutes and is armed with a weapon that can cut you in half quite easily.

Killing somebody that is without a weapon and is literally helpless on the ground before you counts as murder, no matter what justification you put on it or who the person is, be it an innocent child or a Sith Lord with buckets of blood on their conscience.

So, how far does "defending oneself" go?

Stormtroopers are shooting at me.
Stormtroopers are shooting at my friends.
Stormtroopers are gearing up to shoot at my friends.
Stormtroopers are sitting in their barracks, enjoying an evening game of Pazaak before they'll ship out tomorrow to shoot at my friends.
Stormtroopers are sitting in their barracks, enjoying an evening game of Pazaak and have no intention of shooting at my friends because that's what this fully armed and operational battlestation they're guarding is there for.

Jedi served as generals in the clone wars and several wars of the republic before that. Did they just wait until the enemy attacked and never press a counter-offensive? Is accepting that people will most likely die by your hand or by your plan conflict-worthy? Do executions depend on whether they've been sanctioned by some other authority or whether there actually is a way of taking the bad guy prisoner to avoid executing them?

And of course: Does the Jedi order itself accept that taking conflict-worthy actions is sometimes the only way to avoid greater suffering?

I think that the Jedi Order probably always strives for the conflict-less solution, but they seem to be grounded enough to accept that sometimes, a little bit of darkness to stop an upcoming storm is the best course of action.

And before someone brings up a slippery slope argument, let me remind you its called the slippery slope fallacy because its a FALLACY. Aka nonsense.

Honestly I think it's a mistake to look at the movies and other media as a guide to ethical behaviour. You can't even get good moral guidance without internal contradictions from the most popular religious texts, how do you expect a series of two hour movies that are about action and adventure to adhere to some internal consistency?

If you want to play a Jedi, all you can do is try* to live up to the ideals as best you can. Doing your best to live up to the ideals, even if you fail (and you often will), is what separates the Jedi from the Sith, because no philosophy can accommodate everything the real world has to offer. In that regard, the movies and TV series show the Jedi in a generally good light.

* yeah, yeah, there is no try...

Probably best to not think of the jedi code as "a code" you may want to think about it as a ideal to aspire to and do your best to live by. Otherwise we wouldn't have the shades of grey(and not the 50 or so bull).

What's probably going to be the best way to view the jedi order is that although some jedi are the exception to the rule. It does not mean that the majority of the jedi were breaking the code or flaunting the edges of it.

Another thing to consider is the Sith who don't stick to their code and what role that plays.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

And while I can appreciate the debate part of it, such as the "killing a helpless person (in this case Anakin), or letting him slowly burn to death while you watch, instead of putting him out of his agony " debate of what is right/wrong, ultimately it is a LOT of stuff that has been added on by other people, not the original creator, to flesh out the gaping hole of new material for 30 odd years. And given how many different people, with different moralities and philosophies threw their hat into the mix, understandably, you have a very muddled, mixed up, conflicting mess, that doesn't hold up to real world scrutiny.

So just because the movies don't directly state that there's a discussion to be had, we can't have a discussion about it? Authorial intent doesn't work for books, and movies are much the same. We can read into things as much as we like, because nobody has told us we can't.

38 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

So just because the movies don't directly state that there's a discussion to be had, we can't have a discussion about it? Authorial intent doesn't work for books, and movies are much the same. We can read into things as much as we like, because nobody has told us we can't.

....how in the h*ll did you infer me saying "you can't debate philosophical issues presented in Star Wars" from me saying " I can appreciate the debate part of it " I myself will engage in them often on this forum. Are you just looking for something to get upset about? Because what I said is the exact opposite of what you took from it.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

....how in the h*ll did you infer me saying "you can't debate philosophical issues presented in Star Wars" from me saying " I can appreciate the debate part of it " I myself will engage in them often on this forum. Are you just looking for something to get upset about? Because what I said is the exact opposite of what you took from it.

Whoa, sorry. I interpreted your comment as saying that discussion of the moral quandaries within Star Wars is pointless since it isn't officially endorsed and doesn't hold up to real-world logic. If I was wrong, that's my bad.

3 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

Whoa, sorry. I interpreted your comment as saying that discussion of the moral quandaries within Star Wars is pointless since it isn't officially endorsed and doesn't hold up to real-world logic. If I was wrong, that's my bad.

While it is essentially pointless to debate the moral and ethical actions of fictional people, in a fictional galaxy, in a fictional time, long long ago, that doesn't mean it can't be interesting and enjoyable to do. But it IS ultimately pointless, especially when debating what is the "right" answer for someone's gaming table. Bottom line is, there is rarely a 100% right answer when dealing with questions of morality and ethics. There are tons of variables that have to be considered before you can say "X is wrong" and "Y is right". Sure, debate them all you want, but at least appreciate that it is a silly situation. I've seen way too many discussions, usually about the Morality scale in F&D, and how it should/shouldn't apply in any given situation, turn into some rather heated flamewars, or at least approaching flaming rows.

As for official endorsement, I don't care one bit about that in any regard, unless the question is specifically asking about what is officially been endorsed/presented by the material.

On 6/17/2017 at 11:36 AM, 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?

Influence is a stun weapon that cannot be disarmed.

It is a matter of aggression. Aggression should never be used, but being people, sooner or later someone will use aggression toward you. You can choose to do nothing. Or meet said aggression in kind. In the case of someone trying to kill you, the goal is to remove the threat to yourself or another as quickly as possible. The quickest way to do that is to kill them. Not to try to shoot them in the leg or stun them hoping they won't shoot back. That can potentially leave a threat. A dead man is no longer a threat. I'm often remind of a quote fro a very old book:

"If you have to look down the shaft of an arrow at the wrong end, if a man has you at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you are going to die. So they'all talk. They'll gloat. They'll watch you squirm. The'll put off the murder like another man puts off a good cigar. So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you without hardly a word."

For the most part, I have found that to mostly be true. So in the case of Obiwan and Aniken. He didn't finish him off simply cause he was no longer a threat. He might live. He might die. But the threat at that moment was over.

10 hours ago, MasterGrunt said:

In the case of someone trying to kill you, the goal is to remove the threat to yourself or another as quickly as possible. The quickest way to do that is to kill them. Not to try to shoot them in the leg or stun them hoping they won't shoot back. That can potentially leave a threat. A dead man is no longer a threat.

Yet, in this game system, the quickest way to remove a threat is often to stun them. A stunned foe can be easily dispatched should it be deemed necessary. This results from WT often exceeding ST, especially in experienced PCs or in any foes that make active use of stimpacks during battles.

I don't disgree from a game stat perspective. Other than stun is a short range affair. But the argument was less about number crunch and more about justification for Jedi to be so lethal. And no one is going to try to maneuver up on a guy that is shooting at them with an AK just so they can try to hit them with a taser.

Going back to stunning, stunning with the intent to keep them alive but rolling a despair(or equivalent threat) is definitely grounds for something bad to happen, like death instead of sudbdual.

It's all too easy to stun out PC's.

A Squad of Stormtroopers is actually more deadly when going for stun... still stupidly high damage, and if you rolled 1-2 threat, those are stun, too...

Now you guys are just being a bit crunchy on the stun vs subdual argument. Lightsabers largely ignore soak while stun weapons almost never have pierce, so it is a fairly moot point.

Yes a Jedi should generally use violence as a last resort but if someone, an assassin, hired thugs or other hindrances to urgent republic business then they must be made an example of in a way that deters other ill concieved attempts. Hindering a Jedi means directly apposing the interests of the republic and thus is dealt with decisively if violence is the only option. The republic cannot afford any (obvert) underhand deviance to go unpunished, which the Jedi are both enforcers and diplomats for.

And despite conceptions I don't believe the force cares a great deal about individual loss of life but more about the mentally behind those actions. People who enjoy inflicting harm will inevitably fall compared to a impartial mindset that used it as a last resort or when met with an equally decisive force of violence.

2 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Yes a Jedi should generally use violence as a last resort but if someone, an assassin, hired thugs or other hindrances to urgent republic business then they must be made an example of in a way that deters other ill concieved attempts. Hindering a Jedi means directly apposing the interests of the republic and thus is dealt with decisively if violence is the only option. The republic cannot afford any (obvert) underhand deviance to go unpunished, which the Jedi are both enforcers and diplomats for.

Okay, now we're in full-on Tarkin doctrine mode.

7 minutes ago, Cifer said:

Okay, now we're in full-on Tarkin doctrine mode.

Are you saying that state-sanctioned use of force is the same as a doctrine of fear?

1 hour ago, Cifer said:

Okay, now we're in full-on Tarkin doctrine mode.

54 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Are you saying that state-sanctioned use of force is the same as a doctrine of fear?

Thanks for answering on my behalf. ^^

I wouldn't describe the republic as a collective ruled by fear, but I would expect sending Jedi to be the hard option as the response to a hostile takeover . "Look, occupation of this planet is against the republic, we are sending two Jedi to negotiate with the occupation force immediately. IF you DO NOT comply we will impose sanctions on your nation immediately, which may not exclude an republican liberation force levying the threat of said occupation forces complete destruction. I do hope you can come to an agreement that will allow everyone the best possible option for coexistence."

the issue sue was if the system actually worked it would be fine. Issue is the republic was a bloated, unwieldy and ultimately made up of many selfish and corrupt individuals. It would have been months before the republic mobilised and the Jedi as an order were apathetic towards naboo's plight, making no attempt to hurry the senate to a conclusion. thus as a safeguarding diplomatic intermediary and guardians of the republic ALL the Jedi were failing to be decent Jedi, only Qui-Gon saw that quite frankly the status quo was incapable of protecting the Republic. In fact, without the clone army I doubt the republic would had lasted and it was when the war was declared was the Jedi's fate sealed. All the Jedi from the start to the end of that war had failed in their duties by becoming a pawn on the board in which palpatine basically played a game with himself. They no longer had control enough to de-escalate the situation

Of course they might have remained clear of mind, but being enlightened by being ignorant of the galaxies plight is questionable at best, given that the other major reason the order exists is to guide the republic.

E.g. All the Jedi as presented in the clone wars, with the exception of Qui-Gon, had failed in their most fundamental duty of keeping the peace and safeguarding the people and by extension, failed the republic.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Are you saying that state-sanctioned use of force is the same as a doctrine of fear?

I'm saying that a state (or a monastic order somehow entwined with a state) that uses not the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve a situation, but instead strives to "make an example" of its populace by intentional use of excessive force is less than sympathetic to me and would indeed be exactly what Tarkin recommends. Harm greater than necessary to defuse an immediate threat should be left to a judicial system, not to the guy on site in the heat of the moment. This may be about this strange double-role of the Jedi as "peacekeepers" internal and external, by which they assume both roles of a police force and a military in addition to diplomats. Adama's adage comes to mind:

Quote

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

15 minutes ago, Cifer said:

I'm saying that a state (or a monastic order somehow entwined with a state) that uses not the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve a situation, but instead strives to "make an example" of its populace by intentional use of excessive force is less than sympathetic to me and would indeed be exactly what Tarkin recommends. Harm greater than necessary to defuse an immediate threat should be left to a judicial system, not to the guy on site in the heat of the moment. This may be about this strange double-role of the Jedi as "peacekeepers" internal and external, by which they assume both roles of a police force and a military in addition to diplomats. Adama's adage comes to mind:

The thing is that at this point the Jedi are literally peacekeepers, they went to Naboo not to start a war but resolve the situation peacefully, else the republic would have a more active involvement presumably. The Jedi only escalated to violence when the trade Fed not only gased them but murdered a crew who sent the Jedi and sent droids to finish the job and built anti-Jedi droids incase that failed, it literally left the Jedi no choice but to storm the bridge to force a resolution. If those ambassadors were anything but Jedi they would have died, and the trade would claim "oh, no one arrived, but naboo surrendered, the paperwork will arrive soon, just hang on a week" and that likely would have been that.

the jedi in this instance was the result to an aggressive culture taking over another by staving out a planet. Just because the republic didn't do its job in preventing the trade fed resulted in a couple Jedi having to go against standard protocol to raise their own liberation force to prevent an unlawful hostile takeover. Officially the Jedi and republic did nothing to resolve beyond the initial diplomatic envy.