4 hours ago, Tom Cruise said:

Seems weird that Almec would speak so passionately and viciously about a dude he barely knows anything about.

Not looked at the media recently ?

5 hours ago, Tom Cruise said:

Seems weird that Almec would speak so passionately and viciously about a dude he barely knows anything about.

Yeah, it's not like Star Wars fans have ever spoken passionately and viciously about George Lucas. Death threats and violent sexualized assault fantasies are the normal tone online when discussing media creators.

I'd wager most grognardy Star Wars fans know a lot more about George Lucas than Tramp seems to think Almec knows about Jango Fett

9 hours ago, Tom Cruise said:

Seems weird that Almec would speak so passionately and viciously about a dude he barely knows anything about.

Because Jango is a bounty hunter and assassin, and thus "represents" everything the New Mandalorians want to distance themselves from, much like the Death Watch, which is why he also lied about all of the warrior clans supposedly having died out.

I'm a bit confused. I mean... from what I understand, Almec is a character. He does what his writer says he does. There is no "ad hominem" argument vs a creator. He exists as a figment of our collective imaginations. His motivation has zero to do with what a "real" person involved in his character says. Heck, he has no motivations in our world, "He" is not... period.

I get arguing what Tramp is saying, if only in character. But once a "real" person, in the real world says, X is what this is about... that character could be the dirtiest of lairs, In character - in world, but the line isn't meant for the people "in world," it's meant for us (the real people, out here, consuming said media) at that point... it's the creative team/person, telling us how they want us to view the world they get to make. Almec (to us, in our world, reading/watching) has no motivations, he's lines on a paper, digital strings on a program showing us animation. "He" is not.

To counter a statement from Lucas, Hidalgo, or Filoni with a characters motivation just seems to border on something separate from what I call sanity, honestly. it's two different levels, man.

Our little hobby here (TTRPG's) once had a bit of an issue with being able to tell fantasy from reality. Let's make sure we keep those lines clear and distinct, please.

Maybe I'm miss reading the direction of the conversation, but... wow.

13 minutes ago, Hexnwolf said:

Maybe I'm miss reading the direction of the conversation, but... wow.

No, not really! I think you share the sentiment of many of us who sit back, think, "wow," and then move on to the next thread.

3 hours ago, themensch said:

No, not really! I think you share the sentiment of many of us who sit back, think, "wow," and then move on to the next thread.

Yeah. Even I am starting to think it’s reaching a tipping point of going from good natured to decidedly less so, as Tramp and I have been essentially tossing the same few points back and forth. We know where one another stands. I’m out. I’ve got no hard feelings about it, and hope he feels the same.

3 hours ago, Hexnwolf said:

I'm a bit confused. I mean... from what I understand, Almec is a character. He does what his writer says he does. There is no "ad hominem" argument vs a creator. He exists as a figment of our collective imaginations. His motivation has zero to do with what a "real" person involved in his character says. Heck, he has no motivations in our world, "He" is not... period.

I get arguing what Tramp is saying, if only in character. But once a "real" person, in the real world says, X is what this is about... that character could be the dirtiest of lairs, In character - in world, but the line isn't meant for the people "in world," it's meant for us (the real people, out here, consuming said media) at that point... it's the creative team/person, telling us how they want us to view the world they get to make. Almec (to us, in our world, reading/watching) has no motivations, he's lines on a paper, digital strings on a program showing us animation. "He" is not.

To counter a statement from Lucas, Hidalgo, or Filoni with a characters motivation just seems to border on something separate from what I call sanity, honestly. it's two different levels, man.

Our little hobby here (TTRPG's) once had a bit of an issue with being able to tell fantasy from reality. Let's make sure we keep those lines clear and distinct, please.

Maybe I'm miss reading the direction of the conversation, but... wow.

I'm going strictly by the in character material here, regarding what Almec says, and the motivations behind the character's statements. Regardless of what Pablo Hidalgo and/or Dave Filoni said on the matter (and Hidalgo's statements do leave a bit of "wiggle room" here, by maintaining the Concord Dawn origins), Almec's statements within the story itself, reek of political maneuvering and BS. And therefore, not what I would consider authoritative, unlike Watto's statements.

10 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yeah. Even I am starting to think it’s reaching a tipping point of going from good natured to decidedly less so, as Tramp and I have been essentially tossing the same few points back and forth. We know where one another stands. I’m out. I’ve got no hard feelings about it, and hope he feels the same.

No hard feelings either. I've rather been enjoying myself actually.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

Yeah. Even I am starting to think it’s reaching a tipping point of going from good natured to decidedly less so, as Tramp and I have been essentially tossing the same few points back and forth. We know where one another stands. I’m out. I’ve got no hard feelings about it, and hope he feels the same.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that lend credence to in-character dialog being subjectively canon, but I'm not going to waste my life seeking them or arguing about them. It's a big world and there's plenty of room for people to believe whatever truths about fiction that they desire. Have at it.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No hard feelings either. I've rather been enjoying myself actually.

Me too, but I can see how - from the outside looking in - it could be construed as far more contentious than either of us were being. (Especially since at least one person certainly saw it that way. )

8 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Me too, but I can see how - from the outside looking in - it could be construed as far more contentious than either of us were being. (Especially since at least one person certainly saw it that way. )

'Twerent me, I tend to refactor what I type to remove overly incendiary language lest I lead the conversation into bogus arguments and whatnot. But I can see how it could be interpreted as such, we are a legion full of passion after all.

1 hour ago, themensch said:

'Twerent me, I tend to refactor what I type to remove overly incendiary language lest I lead the conversation into bogus arguments and whatnot. But I can see how it could be interpreted as such, we are a legion full of passion after all.

Yep. And you’re not the “at least one.”

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yep. And you’re not the “at least one.”

Okay. This thread has yielded a lot of ignore-list additions so I thought I'd apologize again if I was anything less than civil!

1 hour ago, themensch said:

Okay. This thread has yielded a lot of ignore-list additions so I thought I'd apologize again if I was anything less than civil!

I’ve only ever intentionally put one person on a forum “ignore” list in some 20+ years of online life.

Although there was one time that a board mod thought it would be funny to put someone he didn’t like on everyone’s ignore list. It turned out not to be so funny when several prominent members of the board (including professionals in the field the board was devoted to - think about Keith Kappel’s participation in this board, for example) quit the board over that abuse of power. And still the mod tried to justify it.

On 10/27/2017 at 9:35 PM, korjik said:

If you make me play that game again, and buy that DLC just for that bit, I will get mildly irked.

On 10/28/2017 at 1:29 AM, Maelora said:

You want to see the real ending, don't you?

(honestly, while ME3's ending sucked, Citadel more than makes up for it... You always wanted to have a big party with all your companions at your swanky pad? Always wanted to bring all of your friends to a final battle, not just two? Of course you did!)

It took 6 months, but I am Irked! Well halfway thru the second one, but the Citadel DLC was the why I bought the trilogy.

On 10/24/2017 at 2:15 PM, themensch said:

True, but there is also nothing else that backs it up!

I can see there's no point to continue discussing - I concede that you could be right. The evidence isn't so clear to me, and I choose to see it differently in my games.

This is the Toydarian entry on Star Wars.com’s database

TOYDARIAN

Toydarian are fly-like humanoids, with wings, a snout, and webbed feed. They are known to be strong-willed and resistant to manipulation through the Force.

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

This is the Toydarian entry on Star Wars.com’s database

TOYDARIAN

Toydarian are fly-like humanoids, with wings, a snout, and webbed feed. They are known to be strong-willed and resistant to manipulation through the Force.

Thanks, another excellent datapoint that still doesn't answer the question definitively.

18 minutes ago, themensch said:

Thanks, another excellent datapoint that still doesn't answer the question definitively.

Wow snarky retort. You guys are the ones arguing this **** for nine pages. The canon answer on LFL's own website says their resistant to manipulation through the force, it doesn't seem that contentious of a statement.

Who cares if a few species in a galaxy of millions or billions of species are more resistant to force manipulation than others, there are predators track prey with the force and prey animals which have developed null force bubbles.

22 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Wow snarky retort.

Whoa, that wasn't meant as snarky, my apologies! It's just one more data point to say "well, maybe" but that's what I've been saying all along.

26 minutes ago, Eoen said:

The canon answer on LFL's own website says their resistant to manipulation through the force, it doesn't seem that contentious of a statement.

"Known to be" is hardly definitive, but I see your point. Also, "resistant" is not immune, which I think was the original argument.

28 minutes ago, themensch said:

"Known to be" is hardly definitive, but I see your point. Also, "resistant" is not immune, which I think was the original argument.

Is your complaint the mechanic of immunity as presented in Ghosts of Dathomir? It’s your table you can run it however you feel is best for your game, but I can’t even remember the last time a GM used force suggestion on any of my characters. I have played a Toydarion in a WEG d6 game, never had any interactions with force users in that campaign.

The real reason to play a Toydarian is so you can talk in a voice like Watto. Which is also why I’ve never played a Wookiee.

15 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Is your complaint the mechanic of immunity as presented in Ghosts of Dathomir? It’s your table you can run it however you feel is best for your game, but I can’t even remember the last time a GM used force suggestion on any of my characters. I have played a Toydarion in a WEG d6 game, never had any interactions with force users in that campaign.

The real reason to play a Toydarian is so you can talk in a voice like Watto. Which is also why I’ve never played a Wookiee.

Naw, I have no complaint regarding the mechanics or how they're presented in the book. I'm with you - at my table, I make the canon and never look back.

I think, although I'm reluctant to retrace my steps, that I took issue with the absolutes that were being slung about without justification - so I will admit my arguments were fantastically, pedantically mundane arguments about speech and not the subject matter at hand. You've stumbled onto a particularly ugly chapter in this forum's otherwise glowing history.

Even at that, I think it was only ugly from the outside looking in. Those of us in the conversation weren’t especially hot under the collar about it (and had, at many points, tongues planted firmly in cheek), but to those just observing I can see how it might have looked nastier than it was.

Reminds me of an anecdote once told by Peter David about a prank “war” between himself and J Michael Straczynski (sp?). Long story short, as they played jokes on one another, word began to spread that they hated one another. So David dropped out, saying it wasn’t worth the grief of people getting the wrong message from it.

I think "known to be" would be definitive. Believed to be would be as you implied. @themensch

8 minutes ago, TheShard said:

I think "known to be" would be definitive. Believed to be would be as you implied. @themensch

You make a good point but it's still hardly definitive. Still, that does not convey immunity to me, it conveys a Setback die or two on checks where applicable.