11 minutes ago, ErikModi said:

Not exactly. Anything you might be carrying, but has no effect on you because you're just carrying it and your body is used to it, can still be spread through urine and feces. It's why human waste isn't an ideal fertilizer, it has pathogens that can infect humans. And since were talking Star Wars, there are likely pathogens that can infect other species and to which they have no immune defense.

https://www.popsci.com/urine-sterile-drinking-pee

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/urine-not-sterile-and-neither-rest-you

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/turns-out-urine-isnt-actually-sterile-180954809/

Well that's concerning. I should probably stop peeing in the baptism tank at the local church.

On 1/9/2018 at 10:11 PM, awayputurwpn said:

Gray Jedi don't commit blatantly dark acts to balance out the good ones...that's not "balanced."

Sadly in the Roleplaying game its required or you end up Paragon.

3 hours ago, Decorus said:

Sadly in the Roleplaying game its required or you end up Paragon.

I ran into a similar problem, ended up as Dark Sided though. But that's sort of what happens when you rip someones head off in a berserker rage and then eat their face. That wasn't the thing that made me slip over the limit though, it was when I tossed an old crippled Jedi into a stream of energy to save a young Togruta force sensitive from being sacrificed. Held him in and lost my left arm as well, but that was ok since it was a neat scene with the sacrifice. That and dark sided Zabraks don't come into their own until they're cyborgs.

I personally do not believe that eating the dead is necessarily a conflict worthy offense in itself, I imagine there are some cultures that do eat the dead/discarded limbs (my RP fluff descibes Travok as the kind of Trandosisan that believes that consuming strong people makes you strong; and will often eat his own limbs to "return it back to the body") and further more once something is not living the force doesn't really care; it more cares about how you feel about those actions and how much suffering is generated from those actions. At worst it would be considered callous towards the dead and the family the person would return to; but in all honesty by that point 99% of the time star wars doesn't care about that kind of weighting. Largely because when you collapse a empire you can't really keep track of who goes where in a galaxy of billions of people.

Ethically however is where the conflict will come from. Other members of the party may well be horrified by what you done; other people would be horrified so fourth. So while on a morality scale you might be fine, there would be other consequences to consider further down the line. Furthermore the nature on how those corpses were produced might be where you get the conflict from, and indeed WHO you eat. Eating a stormtrooper is different from eating one of your companions and I would reward somewhere in the region of 5-10 conflict simply on the basis that you took a person you know intimately and deconstructed them into a epic meal time. Even the most resolved being should feel some uneasiness, that conflict would be much greater if you ate a friend you murdered; but the fact murder took place is already a separate conflict worthy offense on top of that.

So personally I wouldn't reward an Ewok force sensitive conflict for eating stormtroopers, but I might include some minor consequences (setback on social checks while the character is present) just to provide a little extra characterisation. If you had to kill a fellow character to survive however; or eat a fellow character you have been through thick and thin with? I would probably reward some for the close connections. It's all circumstantial though and it's worth remembering that.


Edit: Grey Jedi makes my stomach turn; there's so much wrong with them as a concept that I won't really go into here; but it's worth noting that the only grey Jedi have been either an sigma associated by the council; or not actually Jedi at all.

Grey Jedi is the natural way of things post Last Jedi where its literally pointed out that when one side becomes too strong the Force creates an opposing power to balance it out.

5 hours ago, Decorus said:

Grey Jedi is the natural way of things post Last Jedi where its literally pointed out that when one side becomes too strong the Force creates an opposing power to balance it out.

Eh, no. Not really. The Dark Side itself is imbalance. "Light" doesn't mean everything just fine and perfect and nothing ever bad happens ever, it means balance. Life living and dying and giving rise to new life in the cycles of nature. The Dark Side is about conflict and hatred and suffering, and disrupting those natural cycles for personal gain. Note that, when Rey is describing what she feels in the Force to Luke, she notes the balance of life and death before she feels the Dark Side.

"Grey" Jedi, at best, are just those who reject the rules and strictures of the Jedi and insist they can still serve balance even by breaking the rules or, occasionally, doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. At worst, they're a paper-thing justification for "I want a Jedi but to use Force Lightning, because AWESOME!"

It should also be noted that the term "grey Jedi" was often used to denote Jedi who simply didn't always follow the Council's mandates.

No really Where there is strong light there is strong dark. That was the point of Luke's lesson the Force does not belong to anyone its supposed to exist in balance and when that balance is thrown off be it by the light or the dark the force finds someone gives them immense power and balances out the equation.

7 minutes ago, Decorus said:

No really Where there is strong light there is strong dark. That was the point of Luke's lesson the Force does not belong to anyone its supposed to exist in balance and when that balance is thrown off be it by the light or the dark the force finds someone gives them immense power and balances out the equation.

Nope. Go back and watch the movie again. When Darkness rises to power, it puts the Force out of Balance. As a result of this imbalance caused by the Dark Side, the Light must rise to meet it and push it back , and thus restore balance.

23 minutes ago, Decorus said:

No really Where there is strong light there is strong dark. That was the point of Luke's lesson the Force does not belong to anyone its supposed to exist in balance and when that balance is thrown off be it by the light or the dark the force finds someone gives them immense power and balances out the equation.

Does the movie actually say this happens when the Light grows "too strong" as well? Because there are a few lines about the light rising at the presence of darkness, but if we go by George Lucas' older statements about the light side being the balance and the dark side the deviation, the force would have no reason to create a dark side champion if the light became overwhelming.

18 hours ago, Cifer said:

Does the movie actually say this happens when the Light grows "too strong" as well? Because there are a few lines about the light rising at the presence of darkness, but if we go by George Lucas' older statements about the light side being the balance and the dark side the deviation, the force would have no reason to create a dark side champion if the light became overwhelming.

I think the goal of the light side (Jedi) is balance, but in attempting to achieve balance they often tend detatchment, which leads to apathy. When the Jedi become overly apathetic towards the goings-on of the world around them, they create a natural reaction, causing a rise of those who would choose to act to prevent things they see are wrong, even if that means bending the rules or system to their will.

Situation: A small village or system is in need of assistance due to catastrophic storms ravaging the planet.

Balanced Jedi: Attempts to aid the people and ease their plight, doing what they can, but does not weep of morn those that are killed by the storm.

Detached Jedi: Accepts that the storm is the will of the force, and the plight of the people is part of the larger plan.

The Detached Jedi creates their own counter point, people (assuming force sensitives) who will see the effect of that detachment as abandonment, or even go as far as blaming the Detached Jedi for the effects of their INACTION. Swearing that if they had the power (or to gain enough power) they would never let such a thing happen, no matter the cost. This is basically Anakins character arc through the Clone Wars series and prequels (although it could have been told better).

Counter to the Jedi, would be the Sith (using Jedi and Sith cause we don't have any other specific names for one side of the force vs the other without referring to EU).

Balanced Sith: Attempts to aid the people using a 'greater good' mentality, choosing to sacrifice some if necessary to save more, but still blames themselves or is angry for having to make the choice. More power would have saved more people.

Unbalanced Sith: Attempts to turn the situation to their own advantage. Completely frustrated with saving everyone, they focus on their own needs and quest for power, convinced that if they had enough power, the world would no longer need saving.

Lets review.

Jedi all but wiped out the Sith and essentially won. Along comes Darth Sidious who murders 99% of the Jedi destroys the entire Jedi organization and takes over the Galaxy.

Then Luke Skywalker comes along and redeems Annakin and low and behold the dark side is defeated and balance is restored.

Light side grows too strong Ben Solo falls to the dark side and literally takes out all the Jedi.

Rei is born and is now fighting Kylo Ren.

This cycle is endless its happened over and over and over again.

Every single time the Jedi "win" and wipe out the Sith someone falls to the Dark side and **** near wipes them out. The same thing happens with the Sith when they "win" some Super Light side Jedi is born who then wipes them out.

A phrase that has never been uttered in the films, yet sees a lot of play in-game and on the forums, is "the light side."

On 1/14/2018 at 5:54 PM, Decorus said:

No really Where there is strong light there is strong dark. That was the point of Luke's lesson the Force does not belong to anyone its supposed to exist in balance and when that balance is thrown off be it by the light or the dark the force finds someone gives them immense power and balances out the equation.

Luke's point was that the Force, the light, is not the sole property of the Jedi, that the Jedi do not create the light in its entirety. Also, we probably shouldn't take everything Luke says in TLJ as the complete, unvarnished truth, since the whole point of his character arc in the film is basically to be professionally wrong until the last ten minutes.

7 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

A phrase that has never been uttered in the films, yet sees a lot of play in-game and on the forums, is "the light side."

Well, Han mentions "the Dark Side and the Light" in TFA. Don't recall if Luke explicitly mentions the "Light Side" in TLJ, but if the fandom can be under the misconception that if there's a Dark Side there is a Light Side for decades, then a smuggler and a half-trained Jedi Master can be mistaken, as well.

@Decorus

And by "every single time the Jedi win" you mean "twice", right? Plus, the Sith have been seemingly dormant for a millenium, but were beaten back down within about 20 years. That's an interesting definition of "balance".

16 hours ago, Silidus said:

I think the goal of the light side (Jedi) is balance, but in attempting to achieve balance they often tend detatchment, which leads to apathy. When the Jedi become overly apathetic towards the goings-on of the world around them, they create a natural reaction, causing a rise of those who would choose to act to prevent things they see are wrong, even if that means bending the rules or system to their will.

Situation: A small village or system is in need of assistance due to catastrophic storms ravaging the planet.

Balanced Jedi: Attempts to aid the people and ease their plight, doing what they can, but does not weep of morn those that are killed by the storm.

Detached Jedi: Accepts that the storm is the will of the force, and the plight of the people is part of the larger plan.

The Detached Jedi creates their own counter point, people (assuming force sensitives) who will see the effect of that detachment as abandonment, or even go as far as blaming the Detached Jedi for the effects of their INACTION. Swearing that if they had the power (or to gain enough power) they would never let such a thing happen, no matter the cost. This is basically Anakins character arc through the Clone Wars series and prequels (although it could have been told better).

Counter to the Jedi, would be the Sith (using Jedi and Sith cause we don't have any other specific names for one side of the force vs the other without referring to EU).

Balanced Sith: Attempts to aid the people using a 'greater good' mentality, choosing to sacrifice some if necessary to save more, but still blames themselves or is angry for having to make the choice. More power would have saved more people.

Unbalanced Sith: Attempts to turn the situation to their own advantage. Completely frustrated with saving everyone, they focus on their own needs and quest for power, convinced that if they had enough power, the world would no longer need saving.

The Dark Side is inherently selfish, it had never been portrayed as anything else. There's no such thing as a "balanced" or "unbalanaced" Sith; a Sith wouldn't give a yohtz about the village one way or another unless saving it (or destroying it) had some kind of benefit to them personally.

1 hour ago, ErikModi said:

The Dark Side is inherently selfish, it had never been portrayed as anything else. There's no such thing as a "balanced" or "unbalanaced" Sith; a Sith wouldn't give a yohtz about the village one way or another unless saving it (or destroying it) had some kind of benefit to them personally.

Balanced could mean a higher view of egotistical altruism. Saving the village would almost always benefit a selfish Sith. The villagers would be grateful, it would build up their legend and they could gain recruits/acolytes from it. There is no real drawback to it and only stuff to gain from being perceived as benevolent. The Forlorn by David Freer is a pretty good example of it. The First Law series by Joe Abercrombie also has some examples of it.

You can still do Sith things btw. Just gave to temper it with the right good deeds. Wipe out another village with a flash flood to make the first one more grateful for your protection. Engineer a dreadful plague and save them from it. The list can go on.

I think I had some point to all this. Right, Sith doesn't have to be puppystrangling evil all the time. And the most scary evil isn't always the monstrous. Some times the scariest thing is a nice old man who has protected your home region for ages or the kindly old doctor who treats people for free.

44 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Balanced could mean a higher view of egotistical altruism. Saving the village would almost always benefit a selfish Sith. The villagers would be grateful, it would build up their legend and they could gain recruits/acolytes from it. There is no real drawback to it and only stuff to gain from being perceived as benevolent. The Forlorn by David Freer is a pretty good example of it. The First Law series by Joe Abercrombie also has some examples of it.

You can still do Sith things btw. Just gave to temper it with the right good deeds. Wipe out another village with a flash flood to make the first one more grateful for your protection. Engineer a dreadful plague and save them from it. The list can go on.

I think I had some point to all this. Right, Sith doesn't have to be puppystrangling evil all the time. And the most scary evil isn't always the monstrous. Some times the scariest thing is a nice old man who has protected your home region for ages or the kindly old doctor who treats people for free.

Exactly. Although what I wanted to illustrate with the 'Balanced Sith' idea is that there is a spectrum, and at no point should a player feel like they hit 30 morality and is 'just evil now'. There are plenty of ways to play a character who is full of conflict, loss, anger, and frustration while still attempting to make the galaxy a better place (although lets use the term Dark or Fallen Jedi in that case), but just always ends up being more frustrated that they had to save it in the first place. Additionally, we should see that the complete detachment of the Jedi should inherently breed feelings of resentment, or the desire to control in others.

If the Jedi stand back and say "We did what we could", there should always be a little boy crawling from the flames, staring back on the ruins of his old life, swearing...."Never Again".

Your basically talking about Palpating as the literal poster boy for Lawful Evil, "because the fate of the galaxy is too important to be left in the hands of a bunch if goody two-shoes." Seriously, I saw that fan-made poster on the net ages ago.

You're also talking about the idea of being seduced to the Dark Side, the road to **** being paved with good intentions. But, if power and wisdom are linked in the Force, then ultimate power only comes with ultimate wisdom, and ultimate wisdom is to know yourself for true. So, to truly ascend to the heights of power in the Dark Side, a Sith must, at some point, look at themselves in the mirror, realize that, by any civilized metric, they are EVIL, and be okay with that.

It doesn't happen all at once, and it likely doesn't happen to every Sith. But the ones that do get there. . . well, we know them as Bane, Plagueiss, Sidious, Freedon Nadd, Ajunta Pall, Marka Ragnos.

43 minutes ago, ErikModi said:

Your basically talking about Palpating as the literal poster boy for Lawful Evil, "because the fate of the galaxy is too important to be left in the hands of a bunch if goody two-shoes." Seriously, I saw that fan-made poster on the net ages ago.

You're also talking about the idea of being seduced to the Dark Side, the road to **** being paved with good intentions. But, if power and wisdom are linked in the Force, then ultimate power only comes with ultimate wisdom, and ultimate wisdom is to know yourself for true. So, to truly ascend to the heights of power in the Dark Side, a Sith must, at some point, look at themselves in the mirror, realize that, by any civilized metric, they are EVIL, and be okay with that.

It doesn't happen all at once, and it likely doesn't happen to every Sith. But the ones that do get there. . . well, we know them as Bane, Plagueiss, Sidious, Freedon Nadd, Ajunta Pall, Marka Ragnos.

Well that's exactly it isn't it, at some point the frustration of working ineffectively within the system, or even HAVING to work within the system is too much, leading the character to look in the mirror and decide to make the bigger choice.... If the system is fundamentally broken, then its up to them, the one with the true power, to do something about it and change it. Even if it means burning the entire thing to ashes and building anew.

This is essentially Palpatines arc (implied by the movies, not necessarily EU in some parts), a frustration with the ineffectiveness of the Republic leading to a desire to tear down that system and build anew. Obviously, the only way to stop such inefficiencies from occurring in the future, absolute power must be centralized with the only one they can truly trust is up to the task.... themselves. This is echoed in Anakins lines, about a strong moral character making the decisions unilaterally, acting for the good of the Republic as a whole, rather than wasting time catering to special interest groups.

One could argue that Palpatine is indeed being altruistic, why else would he remain in the government, or establish the empire. Surely the task of running the galaxy is less of a path to power (or at least FORCE power) than looking for old Sith temples in the outer rim or wild space. The opportunity to destroy the Jedi may have been a factor, but after doing so, why stick around?

Remember the Sith don't necessarily see themselves as Evil. Anakin kills younglings to gain enough power with the Dark to save Padme. Palpatine and Anakin repeatedly talk about the hypocrisy of the Jedi, or that from their perspective its the Jedi that are evil. A Sith character should never see themselves as evil, but instead as having a higher goal, or a higher purpose. From this point of view, the Jedi and their religion are a cancer of apathy, allowing inequity and strife occur by their inaction and debate over moral qualms, made only worse by their later refusal to cut the infected tissue from the body of the galaxy through their hypocritical 'compassion'.

I guess the point is that yes, at some point on the BIG slide down to the end point of the fall to the dark side, a Dark Jedi should look in the mirror and say "Yup, by any civilized metric, I am evil.", immediately followed by "Its the metrics that are wrong, the fools that call themselves civilized have no concept of their own failings, their own inadequacies.... that is why I must do what I do, and that is why they must be ended."

That's the great storytelling rule, no villain looks in the mirror and sees a villain, every villain is the hero of his own story.

Which means you can get GREAT mileage by breaking that rule.

Which is more terrifying: the villain with the complex motivation, the understandable Start Of Darkness, the one faced with such impossible situations that you can say to yourself, "yes, in their position, I probably would have done the same." Or the villain who knows they're evil, and doesn't care? Who relishes the pain and suffering they cause, just because they do. "Some men aren't looking for anything rational. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Palpatine was definitely not being altruistic with his Empire. Rampant slavery and discrimination, nationalization and industrialization of worlds to make them more efficient cogs in the Imperial machine, blowing up whole planets because they disagreed with him, and so on. All to increase his own personal power, to make his position unassailable. Safety and security for Palpatine himself, so he could search for eternal life, so could maintain his rule and control over the galaxy for eternity, because he could.

That's evil.

1 hour ago, ErikModi said:

Palpatine was definitely not being altruistic with his Empire. Rampant slavery and discrimination, nationalization and industrialization of worlds to make them more efficient cogs in the Imperial machine, blowing up whole planets because they disagreed with him, and so on. All to increase his own personal power, to make his position unassailable. Safety and security for Palpatine himself, so he could search for eternal life, so could maintain his rule and control over the galaxy for eternity, because he could.

See to me, I still see that as altruistic. Sure, Palpatine is afraid of losing his power, he says as much in the films, so to a large degree he is going to all lengths to ensure the 'safety and security' of both his empire and himself. But to him, the ends justify the means. Bane proved for a thousand years that the key to safety and survival was anonymity, the rule of Two was established for exactly that. Palatine instead revels in militaristic systems, in order and hierarchy.

Sith training is about beating down your students, grinding them into the dirt so they must either rise again, harder and stronger, or fail, leaving room for new pupils. The Sith believe this method creates the best, only those with the will and strength to rise through adversity will survive to rule, to overthrow those in power and take the power for themselves. It is the opposite of the slow death, when the strong allow the weak to linger on, weakening themselves only to be defeated by a lesser opponent.

Palpatine is doing this on a Galactic scale, grinding entire systems under his rule, using adversity and strife within his own system (disputes between Moffs), and the crushing boot of his own Empire on entire systems to see who will rise up. His tenacity to maintaining his own life and power only ensures that whoever overthrows him has the right to that mantle. Vader hits at this, telling Luke that the emperor has foreseen his own downfall at the hands of Vader and Luke (and is presumably ok with it).

Is Evolutionary Altruism a term? Creating the most hostile possible system to ensure only those the most well adapted to that system are able to survive?

(I think the Joker line is a bit off. I don't think we ever see Palpatine doing anything solely for his own enjoyment, nor do we see him reveling in general Chaos. His entire regime is about order, rules, and hard indisputable law, never in chaos. Nor do we see him reveling in his gains, golden thrones or scantily clad handmaidens... everything about him is set to ensure the security and power of his empire, not his own comfort or enjoyment. To me, that means the Empire is more important to him, to me that means that he sees his Empire as being more important than himself.)

19 minutes ago, Silidus said:

Is Evolutionary Altruism a term? Creating the most hostile possible system to ensure only those the most well adapted to that system are able to survive?

No, but Social Darwinism is.

And Palpatine may not be about Chaos, but he's definitely about destroying everything he doesn't like because he can. He's not doing this for anyone, he's doing it for himself, for his own power and safety. He's destroying a Jedi Order that's stood for a thousand generations because, a thousand years ago, they wiped out a Sith Order he's only read about, and which the founder of his Sith Order considered completely pathetic. He's destroying a Republic founded on freedom, justice, and democracy so he can replace it with an authoritarian state that's all about giving power to Palpatine. This order will be built on the backs of the oppressed and enslaved, any resistance will be ruthlessly crushed until the word itself loses all meaning. Trillions will die, whole civilizations will be wiped out, whole planets will be destroyed, all so Darth Sidious can rule over whatever ashes remain.

That's a great plan. . . if you're Darth Sidious. If not, well, sucks to be you.

1 hour ago, ErikModi said:

Your basically talking about Palpating as the literal poster boy for Lawful Evil, "because the fate of the galaxy is too important to be left in the hands of a bunch if goody two-shoes." Seriously, I saw that fan-made poster on the net ages ago.

You're also talking about the idea of being seduced to the Dark Side, the road to **** being paved with good intentions. But, if power and wisdom are linked in the Force, then ultimate power only comes with ultimate wisdom, and ultimate wisdom is to know yourself for true. So, to truly ascend to the heights of power in the Dark Side, a Sith must, at some point, look at themselves in the mirror, realize that, by any civilized metric, they are EVIL, and be okay with that.

It doesn't happen all at once, and it likely doesn't happen to every Sith. But the ones that do get there. . . well, we know them as Bane, Plagueiss, Sidious, Freedon Nadd, Ajunta Pall, Marka Ragnos.

Palpatine was a power hungry psycho from the start though. He wanted power for the sake of power and liked killing people. People keep speculating about some unseen threat that he was preparing for, but he could have done a lot better work at it if that's what he wanted. It seems pretty clear he just wanted power and then keep in power, and if the Empire failed him then they could all burn and die. There is very little regard for the law in there. Unless you agree that he is the Senate and the law is whatever he says it is.

4 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Palpatine was a power hungry psycho from the start though. He wanted power for the sake of power and liked killing people. People keep speculating about some unseen threat that he was preparing for, but he could have done a lot better work at it if that's what he wanted. It seems pretty clear he just wanted power and then keep in power, and if the Empire failed him then they could all burn and die. There is very little regard for the law in there. Unless you agree that he is the Senate and the law is whatever he says it is.

Is there any evidence that he liked killing people? Most of the lines I can think of center around "Do what must be done!" rather than "HEHEH Watch this!". I don't think I have ever seen anything with regard to him killing anyone, personal or by extension, without the higher motive of either making them stronger, testing their mettle, or making example of them.

I think the only time I can think of him killing anyone personally for another reason was his fight with Maul to uphold the Rule of Two.