19 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

Did Obi get conflict for lying when he said

“These are not the droids you’re looking for”

Because every group will have their own boundaries I would use that one specifically because it’s absolutely connected to the Force, it’s cannon, it is an out and out lie, and is entirely for the benefits of others. Don’t argue with other groups over it, just discuss that situation with the people you play with.

Eh, this... is not at all what is being discussed.

If Obi Wan had said, "Those are the droids you're looking for.", And pointed to two other droids, that the empire then arrested.

That is what Tramp is saying does not warrant Conflict because it beneifted "others" (only the droids the Empire was looking for/Obi's cause), but everyone else is saying "The GM should be able to give Conflict for that IF they want to.", because it's a little bit selfish.

That is what people are talking about here.

10 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Eh, this... is not at all what is being discussed.

If Obi Wan had said, "Those are the droids you're looking for.", And pointed to two other droids, that the empire then arrested.

That is what Tramp is saying does not warrant Conflict because it beneifted "others" (only the droids the Empire was looking for/Obi's cause), but everyone else is saying "The GM should be able to give Conflict for that IF they want to.", because it's a little bit selfish.

That is what people are talking about here.

IF it's selfish, it's not for the benefit of others. That's the problem with your viewpoint. A lie is either selfish or selfless. If you are lying in order to benefit someone else, that is not selfish intent. That is selfless intent, regardless if you end up benefiting as well. What’s important is why you lied. A lie told is intended either for selfish gain or for the benefit of others. It’s one or the other. It's either for personal gain, or for the benefit of others. If it's for personal gain, you get one Conflict. If it's for the benefit of others, it's no Conflict. It's that simple.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

IF it's selfish, it's not for the benefit of others. That's the problem with your viewpoint. A lie is either selfish or selfless. It's one or the other. It's either for personal gain, or for the benefit of others. If it's for personal gain, you get one Conflict. If it's for the benefit of others, it's no Conflict. It's that simple.

Ha. This had never been your assertion til now. And you just admitted I'm right with this assertion, because it's goes directly back to degrees of selfishness and the GMs word being the final say on that, as to whether something is or is not selfish.

Also, this situation is the one thing clearly in RAW that should never warrant Conflict.

Lying to avoid combat.

So you basically just don't know what you're trying to say anymore, or you want people to stop paying attention to how obviously wrong you are.

1 minute ago, emsquared said:

Ha. This had never been your assertion til now. And you just admitted I'm right with this assertion, because it's goes directly back to degrees of selfishness and the GMs word being the final say on that, as to whether something is or is not selfish.

Also, this situation is the one thing clearly in RAW that should never warrant Conflict.

Lying to avoid combat.

So you basically just don't know what you're trying to say anymore, or you want people to stop paying attention to how obviously wrong you are.

Read the rest, I admitted no such thing. As I added in my edit. It’s all about intent. If the intent of the lie is for the benefit of others then it cannot be for selfish gain, regardless of whether the liar ultimately benefits as well. If his intent is to benefit someone else , the “lie” is pure and no Conflict is warranted. If, however, the intent of the lie is for selfish gratification , then it warrants Conflict. Just because a lie told with the intent to benefit another may end up benefiting the liar as well, does not make that lie a lie for personal gain. A lie for Personal Gain is a lie specifically told to benefit the liar alone with no regard for how it may help or hurt others. That is what warrants Conflict. A lie told for the benefit of others is just that. It’s told without regard to how it will affect the liar himself , whether that potential effect is positive or negative, as long as others benefit .

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It’s  all about  intent  . 

Wrong. By RAW. Wrong.

Intent should be taken into consideration, but it is not the determining factor. That is the GM.

Again, no matter how YOU slice it, you're wrong Tramp.

30 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Wrong. By RAW. Wrong.

Intent should be taken into consideration, but it is not the determining factor. That is the GM.

Again, no matter how YOU slice it, you're wrong Tramp.

No, by RAW, I am correct . The rule says that a lie for Personal Gain garners one Conflict. That means the the intent of the lie is for selfish reasons or specifically to benefit the liar with no regard for how it affects other people, for good or ill. That is Lying for Personal Gain.

By contrast, if the lie is specifically told to benefit others, it doesn’t matter to the liar if he benefits or is harmed as a result as long as the goal is specifically to benefit someone else. When it comes to a lie intent is everything .

Looking a Ben’s “lies” from ANH, his lie to Luke about his father was told with the specific intent to protect him from a horrible truth he was not emotionally prepared to handle yet. That is a lie told for the benefit of others, and thus no Conflict. Likewise, his “lie” to the Stormtrooper commander while using Influence was told in order to protect Luke and the Droids, and, ultimately the Rebellion. Not only that but it avoids what would otherwise have been an unavoidable combat and people—be it him and Luke, or the stormtroopers—would be killed. The fact that it helps him out as well is of no concern to him, as long as Luke and the droids make it safely into the hands of the Rebels, and as long as it avoids unnecessary bloodshed. Thus, once again, no Conflict. These are both lies told specifically for the benefit of others , not for Personal Gain.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Looking a Ben’s “lies” from ANH, his lie to Luke about his father was told with the specific intent to protect him from a horrible truth he was not emotionally prepared to handle yet.

Well, if we accept that, why blame Vader specifically? I mean, he could have said it was battle droids, crashing in his starfighter or a million other ways to die in the Clone Wars, Obi-wan went with "Darth Vader murdered him", which happened to be quite helpful to Kenobi's own agenda. So at least in part, that lie was also quite self-serving. Even in some way benefits someone else in some way, it shouldn't automatically get you off the hook if it also plays to your advantage.

For instance, if someone runs up to me with a wallet they found and asks if it's mine, and I say yes, take money and donate half to charity, the lie has benefited someone else, but I've also benefited from it. ****, even if donate all of it to make a good impression on a charity worker, it's still a selfish lie.

Also, "I lied to you to protect you" is generally a terrible excuse and a pretty terrible thing to do.

26 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Well, if we accept that, why blame Vader specifically? I mean, he could have said it was battle droids, crashing in his starfighter or a million other ways to die in the Clone Wars, Obi-wan went with "Darth Vader murdered him", which happened to be quite helpful to Kenobi's own agenda. So at least in part, that lie was also quite self-serving. Even in some way benefits someone else in some way, it shouldn't automatically get you off the hook if it also plays to your advantage.

For instance, if someone runs up to me with a wallet they found and asks if it's mine, and I say yes, take money and donate half to charity, the lie has benefited someone else, but I've also benefited from it. ****, even if donate all of it to make a good impression on a charity worker, it's still a selfish lie.

Also, "I lied to you to protect you" is generally a terrible excuse and a pretty terrible thing to do.

The reason why is, as he later told Luke in RotJ, from his point of view, when Anakin turned to the Dark Side and became Darth Vader, “Anakin” ceased to exist, Vader “killed” him. Hence why he says, “So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.”

52 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The reason why is, as he later told Luke in RotJ, from his point of view, when Anakin turned to the Dark Side and became Darth Vader, “Anakin” ceased to exist, Vader “killed” him. Hence why he says, “So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.”

*sigh*

Let me demonstrate with pictures.

This is you.

The point is here.

Meaning, that you've slightly missed it.

My point is, that there was no need to go into the detail of how he died. If he was going to lie to spare Luke's feeling, there was no point in letting him believe that Vader had murdered his father. That is no comfort, that is only pointing Luke's animosity of his father's death at someone. Additionally, if he needed to throw shade at Vader, there was plenty of atrocities to choose from, without going into metaphors about Vader betraying and murdering Anakin. Luke didn't seem to have a clue to Vader was, so namedropping him achieves nothing in comforting Luke. It only focuses Luke on Vader as his father's killer.

It doesn't matter if it's the truth "from a certain point of view", because namedropping Vader was pointless.

19 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

*sigh*

Let me demonstrate with pictures.

This is you.

The point is here.

Meaning, that you've slightly missed it.

My point is, that there was no need to go into the detail of how he died. If he was going to lie to spare Luke's feeling, there was no point in letting him believe that Vader had murdered his father. That is no comfort, that is only pointing Luke's animosity of his father's death at someone. Additionally, if he needed to throw shade at Vader, there was plenty of atrocities to choose from, without going into metaphors about Vader betraying and murdering Anakin. Luke didn't seem to have a clue to Vader was, so namedropping him achieves nothing in comforting Luke. It only focuses Luke on Vader as his father's killer.

It doesn't matter if it's the truth "from a certain point of view", because namedropping Vader was pointless.

I got your point. However, I disagree. Ben did need to tell Luke that it was Vader who “killed” Anakin. Something vague, such as him simply being killed in the war would have simply led to more questions, such as who exactly killed him? Where did it happen? What exactly happened? Luke wanted details , not vagueries. He’d been getting that all his life. So no, Ben had to tell him exactly who killed his father. Luke needed a concrete answer in order to get closure. Ben gave him one.

I lost a friend of mine many years ago to a shooting.two other friends were injured in that same incident. It was very important to me to know exactly what happened, who did it, how, why, etc. Luke needed to know those same things about his father. A vague answer was not enough. So, yes, “name dropping”, as you put it, was extremely important to Luke getting closure.

46 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I got your point. However, I disagree. Ben did need to tell Luke that it was Vader who “killed” Anakin. Something vague, such as him simply being killed in the war would have simply led to more questions, such as who exactly killed him? Where did it happen? What exactly happened? Luke wanted details , not vagueries. He’d been getting that all his life. So no, Ben had to tell him exactly who killed his father. Luke needed a concrete answer in order to get closure. Ben gave him one.

I lost a friend of mine many years ago to a shooting.two other friends were injured in that same incident. It was very important to me to know exactly what happened, who did it, how, why, etc. Luke needed to know those same things about his father. A vague answer was not enough. So, yes, “name dropping”, as you put it, was extremely important to Luke getting closure.

Tragic personal anecdote but irrelevant to the discussion. Luke didn't ask for further details and Obi-wan hardly tried to give him closure by pinning the murder on Vader, who was still large and in charge in the empire. Had he wanted to give closure he could've went with detailed information like "He fell into a volcano on mustafar" or "While I was away he fell during the Jedi purge on Coruscant" which would also happen to be true.

Telling a kid his father was murdered by a man who is still around and just happens to be your mortal enemy is not "giving closure". That's aiming a weapon.

Is it weird that I find it hilarious that the whole last page of this topic appears to me as:

12 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Tragic personal anecdote but irrelevant to the discussion. Luke didn't ask for further details and Obi-wan hardly tried to give him closure by pinning the murder on Vader, who was still large and in charge in the empire. Had he wanted to give closure he could've went with detailed information like "He fell into a volcano on mustafar" or "While I was away he fell during the Jedi purge on Coruscant" which would also happen to be true.

Telling a kid his father was murdered by a man who is still around and just happens to be your mortal enemy is not "giving closure". That's aiming a weapon.

Yes, he did. He specifically asked, “ How did my father die?” Now, if I asked a question like that and was told something vague, like you’re suggesting Ben should have done, I would have asked a lot more questions in order to get more details. I would want the full story . This is what Luke wanted. He wanted to know the full story about his father, and how he died. Ben knew this.

As for him “aiming a weapon” at Vader. Given Jedi teaching on hate and vengeance, I whole-heartedly disagree with that assertion.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, he did. He specifically asked, “ How did my father die?” Now, if I asked a question like that and was told something vague, like you’re suggesting Ben should have done, I would have asked a lot more questions in order to get more details. I would want the full story . This is what Luke wanted. He wanted to know the full story about his father, and how he died. Ben knew this.

...and he didn't get it. Nor could he expect Ben to know the exact details of someone's death in a war. And if Ben was going to make up details anyway, he could've went with anything that didn't point Luke against his own father. But nope, blame Vader for the one thing he actually didn't do. Conveniently, this also obfuscates that, from a certain point of view, Obi-wan killed Anakin.

Or he could've just went with not refuting Owen Lars lie, that Anakin wasn't in the clone wars, but nope, Obi-wan wanted Luke to join the fight, and told him stuff to push him in that direction. I mean, was there ever a more bald faced lie than "Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise"? Rival Jawa sandcrawler drive-by more likely. ?

In both of your “hypothetical” answers, they would not only leave Luke with more questions, but also would not inspire Luke to become a Jedi. Ben’s “lie”, was not to point Luke at hating Vader. It was to establish Anakin as a hero, and even a martyr, to be looked up to be and even emulated. Not only that, but, as I said before, from Ben’s point of view , he was telling Luke the truth.

20 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In both of your “hypothetical” answers, they would not only leave Luke with more questions, but also would not inspire Luke to become a Jedi. Ben’s “lie”, was not to point Luke at hating Vader. It was to establish Anakin as a hero, and even a martyr, to be looked up to be and even emulated. Not only that, but, as I said before, from Ben’s point of view , he was telling Luke the truth.

Obi-wan manipulated Luke to his own ends. Gotcha. Nice that you finally admitted it.

29 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Obi-wan manipulated Luke to his own ends. Gotcha. Nice that you finally admitted it.

Manipulating? No. And certainly not in the way nor intent you’re insinuating. Inspiring? Yes. Inspiring Luke to take up the mantle of a Jedi Knight, not seek revenge. Ben wanted Luke to see his father as a hero , which he was at first. He also didn’t want to burden Luke with the horrible truth of what his father had become.

On 10/30/2018 at 4:18 AM, VadersMarchKazoo said:

1. Does the force care about intent or strategy? This covers things like the good of the many outweigh the good of the few (thanks Wrath of Khan).

Or, Jeremy Betham?

@HappyDaze It's to bad you feel the need to put them on ignore, and that they need to be ignored.

On 11/4/2018 at 4:36 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Manipulating? No. And certainly not in the way nor intent you’re insinuating. Inspiring? Yes. Inspiring Luke to take up the mantle of a Jedi Knight, not seek revenge. Ben wanted Luke to see his father as a hero , which he was at first. He also didn’t want to burden Luke with the horrible truth of what his father had become.

That sure backfired later didn't it. The road to the dark-side is paved with good intentions.

5 minutes ago, Eoen said:

That sure backfired later didn't it. The road to the dark-side is paved with good intentions.

Not really. Yes, Luke was crushed when Vader told him the "real truth", but he had the maturity to get over it and, wasn't angry with Ben or Yoda, and ultimately understood why they withheld that information. Luke even apologized. And, Ben's "lie" did indeed inspire Luke to be a hero, not hate Vader. So, no. I wouldn't really say it "backfired".

On 11/4/2018 at 6:40 PM, Endersai said:

Or, Jeremy Betham?

Jeremy Betham probably stole that from the Trekkies. Of course, a little time travel may have been necessary ?

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really. Yes, Luke was crushed when Vader told him the "real truth", but he had the maturity to get over it and, wasn't angry with Ben or Yoda, and ultimately understood why they withheld that information. Luke even apologized. And, Ben's "lie" did indeed inspire Luke to be a hero, not hate Vader. So, no. I wouldn't really say it "backfired".

Do you think that everything Ben and Yoda did was perfect?

Follow up: Was it cool that Ben just left Anakin badly burnt and suffering on Mustafar? Shouldn’t he have offered to help him (taking the high ground) or at least killed him out of mercy?

40 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Do you think that everything Ben and Yoda did was perfect?

Follow up: Was it cool that Ben just left Anakin badly burnt and suffering on Mustafar? Shouldn’t he have offered to help him (taking the high ground) or at least killed him out of mercy?

Nobody is “perfect”. However, I wouldn’t call any of his actions Conflict worthy either. As for “mercy killing”, Jedi don’t consider that mercy. They don’t take a life unless they absolutely have to in order to protect themselves or someone else.

By the same token, they aren’t required to “save” or help a fallen foe either, particularly one that, moments before, was trying to kill one of their number and had already slaughtered uncounted numbers of them just recently.

11 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for “mercy killing”, Jedi don’t consider that mercy         . They don’t take a life unless they absolutely have to in order to protect themselves or someone else.

Do you have a canon source for the first part of that statement?

Also, you do realize that Obi-wan went to Mustafar to kill Anakin, right? The way it plays out makes it seem like he can't bring himself to go through with it and/or thinks there's no way Anakin would survive the lava. If it's just the latter, it's hardly a mercy to leave someone to burn and suffocate in agonizing pain until they slowly kick the bucket either. If you can't/won't save them from that, I can't see how anyone would see a quick lightsabering as less mercyful than slow death by volcano.

Of course, one could read the scene as Obi-wan deciding to spare Anakin, confident that a good de-limbing and a stern talking to would set him right or at least remove him as a threat. It's not like Obi-wan could possibly have known about the possibility of someone badly, nay grieviously , injured coming back in a powerful cyborg body.