14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes. It does. Luke asked Obi Wan, point blank, "How did my father die?" Obi Wan had two potential choices. He could tell him the truth, that his father was still alive and was the Emperor's Sith killing machine, or he could tell him that his father was a hero who died at the hands of said Sith killing machine. Which would you tell a young, innocent boy, particularly one you are placing the hopes of the entire galaxy on? Telling Luke the truth would have devastated him. This is proven in ESB when he does finally learn the truth about Vader's identity from Vader himself. He's crushed. If he had been told that on Tatooine, it would have destroyed him emotionally. Obi Wan did what was in Luke's best interest. Therefore, there is no Conflict.

Secondly, as Obi Wan himself said in RotJ. As far as he was concerned, when Anakin became Darth Vader, the good man he used to be was dead. So, from his point of view, he was telling the "truth". Regardless, his "lie" was for Luke's own welfare. It was the right thing to do.

He us crushed because of the realisation that the father he thought was a hero is a monstrous killing machine and that the two mentors he trusted lied to him. If he had known the truth before coming face to face with Vader, then the truth would not have hurt him.

On Tattoine he doesn't really know a lot about his father, the truth would likely have been less harmful there than it was on Bespin. Kenobi could have dodged the question when Luke asked Obi-Wan about how his father died. He could have said that he doesn't know how Anakin died, or that he wanted to tell him about how Anakin lived first or any other thing to deflect away from the question. Jedi are supposedly good at that. Instead he tells him the one thing that makes the truth the most harmful and the thing most likely to set an impressionable youth on a quest for revenge.

1 minute ago, Darth Revenant said:

He us crushed because of the realisation that the father he thought was a hero is a monstrous killing machine and that the two mentors he trusted lied to him. If he had known the truth before coming face to face with Vader, then the truth would not have hurt him.

On Tattoine he doesn't really know a lot about his father, the truth would likely have been less harmful there than it was on Bespin. Kenobi could have dodged the question when Luke asked Obi-Wan about how his father died. He could have said that he doesn't know how Anakin died, or that he wanted to tell him about how Anakin lived first or any other thing to deflect away from the question. Jedi are supposedly good at that. Instead he tells him the one thing that makes the truth the most harmful and the thing most likely to set an impressionable youth on a quest for revenge.

No, it wouldn't have been. It would have destroyed him. Telling him then would have been the worst thing Obi an could have done. Just like you don't tell a child such things either. You protect them from such harsh truths until they are old enough, and emotionally mature enough to handle it. As I said, read the book The Philosophy of Star Wars. It contains several different treatises on the various aspects of the movies, by numerous experts on Philosophy and ethics. One in particular, that I mentioned above goes into in depth detail on this very subject in particular. the conclusion is that lying was the right thing to do. Luke was not ready to handle learning the truth about his father, not on Tatooine, not when Vader told him. He was only ready when he returned to Dagobah and talked with Yoda and Obi Wan. That is why lying for the benefit of others does not garner Conflict. It is because it is to protect them, either from physical harm, or emotional harm, or even simply to avoid unnecessary combat and bloodshed; If it is for a righteous aim, there is no Conflict warranted.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it wouldn't have been. It would have destroyed him. Telling him then would have been the worst thing Obi an could have done. Just like you don't tell a child such things either. You protect them from such harsh truths until they are old enough, and emotionally mature enough to handle it. As I said, read the book The Philosophy of Star Wars. It contains several different treatises on the various aspects of the movies, by numerous experts on Philosophy and ethics. One in particular, that I mentioned above goes into in depth detail on this very subject in particular. the conclusion is that lying was the right thing to do. Luke was not ready to handle learning the truth about his father, not on Tatooine, not when Vader told him. He was only ready when he returned to Dagobah and talked with Yoda and Obi Wan. That is why lying for the benefit of others does not garner Conflict. It is because it is to protect them, either from physical harm, or emotional harm, or even simply to avoid unnecessary combat and bloodshed; If it is for a righteous aim, there is no Conflict warranted. 

The book you refer to does not show up on google results, nor does it show up on Wookieepedia as a Star Wars book. The author you refer to doesn't show up on google either, nor does the name appear in conjunction with Parabola Magazine. I can't seem to find the source you're referencing, so either it's obscure as all Dark Side plane of infernal suffering, or it doesn't exist. There is "Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful than You Can Possibly Imagine (Popular Culture and Philosophy)" but it doesn't appear to contain any text by the author you're referencing, so it doesn't appear to be the one either.

Anyway, Luke is 19 at A New Hope. While he's not fully grown he is legally an adult in most settings, there is still some emotional maturity to be gained, but he's hardly a child. He is 19 years old, old enough to fight a war and old enough to get married. He's old enough to handle more of the truth than he gets. In ESB he's 22 years old, well into adulthood in most cultures and societies, sure there is still some growing to be done, but having kids of his own or being married is hardly outside of the realm of possibilities then. He would have been old enough to handle the truth. Lying was not the right thing to do because the choice wasn't between the lie that was told or truth, the choice was between a lie that furthered their aims or a half-truth that would open a possibility of the truth later. When Obi-Wan tells Luke that Anakin was killed by Vader he is making any revelation of the truth into a harmful thing, Luke will feel betrayed because his mentor, who was supposed to be a good friend of his father, lied to him. Not just a small lie either, but a big honking harmful lie. If we judge Yoda and Obi-Wan what we see on the screen, then they're lying because they want Luke to do what they could not do, to kill Palpatine and Vader. To kill his own father, hopefully without knowing the truth of it. That is what they're trying to make him do, not redeem Anakin or anything like that, their end goal is that Palpatine and Vader are both to die. And the lie told by Kenobi makes perfect sense if you accept that. Without any need for theoretical treatises about Star Wars lore that doesn't seem to have left any impression on the internet.

But sure, there would be no conflict. The lie is after all told for the greater good, for that is the will of the force. That the dark side should perish and that both Vader and Palpatine should die. **** rotten luck that Snoke and Kylo were waiting in the proverbial wings to fill that open spot. It's like the force can't make up its **** mind, or maybe it's a franchise we're reading way too much into. Either way, Kenobi and Yoda attempted to radicalize a teen through religious dogma to carry out a decapitation strike against a hostile government.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As I said, read the book The Philosophy of Star Wars. It contains several different treatises on the various aspects of the movies, by numerous experts on Philosophy and ethics. One in particular, that I mentioned above goes into in depth detail on this very subject in particular. the conclusion is that lying was the right thing to do.

Well, now you're referrering to a third party source that only partly agrees with you, and I'm somewhat dubious of it since, well, not to put too fine a point on it, you have a habit of interpreting sources in a creative way if that's what it takes for them agree with your position.

Taking a step back from Obi-wan for a moment, let's talk Yoda. He actively trained Luke to kill his father, and when Luke ran off and would very likely face Vader, Yoda decided not to spill the beans, despite it being a good argument to keep him from going.

So, Yoda seemed to perfectly fine with Luke running off and potentially killing his dear old dad without knowing. And since Obi-wan failed to finish Vader off because his own emotional attachment ("You were my brother, Anakin!"), it's hardly far-fetched to surmise that he and Yoda actively kept the truth from him to keep him from being distracted.

And that's bad.

Star Wars and Philosophy, by Kevin Decker and Jason Eberl is indeed the book I'm talking about. I do sometimes get the title confused. Sorry about that.

As for Luke, regardless of his physical age, he is still very emotionally immature, and has been sheltered by his "aunt" and "uncle" for all of his life. He's naive, immature, brash, reckless, headstrong, and whiny. There is no way he would have been able to handle being told that one of the most evil men in the galaxy was his father, especially when there is a good chance that they may run into him (as they did not long after leaving Tatooine).

The lie Ben told Luke was for Luke's benefit, not for selfish gain. And, if you watch RotJ, Luke doesn't feel betrayed at all. He questions Ben about it, and Yoda before that, and he accepts their reasoning. He understands why they did it, and holds not grudges against them. He knows that what they did, they did for his sake. Yes, they believe that Vader is irredeemable, yes, they need Luke to destroy the Emperor. That does not change the fact that Luke was not ready to learn that Vader was his father back on Tatooine. Yoda himself says this flat out. "Unfortunate that you rushed to face him, that incomplete was your training, that not ready for the burden were you." The key phrase there being that Luke was not ready to know the truth. And wouldn't be until he had been fully trained. By that statement, it's clear that Ben and Yoda would have revealed the full truth to Luke once Luke was fully trained, and had the proper mindset and emotional stability needed to handle it. Luke showed that in RotJ. He didn't have that in ESB, and certainly not in ANH. There is no way that the sheltered Luke we knew on Tatooine would have been able to handle that kind of truth.

Imagine what would have happened on the Death Star had Luke already known that Vader was his father. It would have been a disaster. He would have tried to confront his father then and there, been captured, taken to the Emperor, and turned to the Dark Side. Game over. That is the danger of telling Luke too soon. That is why Obi Wan didn't tell Luke the truth right from the start. Luke needed to be fully trained before knowing the truth. That way, when he does eventually confront his father and the Emperor, he has the emotional stability, the control, willpower, and discipline to be able to withstand the trials and temptations he would face. The Luke of ANH and ESB did not have that capability. Therefore, he was not ready to handle knowing that Vader was his father.

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

Well, now you're referrering to a third party source that only partly agrees with you, and I'm somewhat dubious of it since, well, not to put too fine a point on it, you have a habit of interpreting sources in a creative way if that's what it takes for them agree with your position.

Taking a step back from Obi-wan for a moment, let's talk Yoda for a moment. He actively trained Luke to kill his father, and when Luke ran off and would very likely face Vader, Yoda decided not to spill the beans, despite it being a good argument to keep him from going.

So, Yoda seemed to perfectly fine with Luke running off and potentially killing his dear old dad without knowing. And since Obi-wan failed to finish Vader off because his own emotional attachment ("You were my brother, Anakin!"), it's hardly far-fetched to surmise that he and Yoda actively kept the truth from him to keep him from being distracted.

And that's bad.

I'm looking at every source, Canon, Legends, the game, and, yes, books by experts in the field of philosophy and how it relates to the Star Wars universe and events in the films.

Yoda was training Luke to be a Jedi, not necessarily kill his father. Not once during Luke's training does Yoda say anything about defeating Vader. He teaches him how to control and manipulate the Force, how to control his emotions, how to center himself and not let anger, fear, or hate control him. That is what Yoda teaches Luke. And, is it bad? Is it really? Anakin fell to the Dark Side because he couldn't let go of his attachments. That is why the Jedi of Yoda's time forbade emotional attachments. Having too strong of an attachment to anything is dangerous. Did the old Jedi go too far? that's debatable. The ancient Stoic philosophy also teaches complete denial of attachment, Zen Buddhism too, to an extent. But the fact that Luke was Anakin's son, and thus could potentially have that same unhealthy level of attachment, like his father did, was definitely a valid concern for Yoda and Ben. What Luke showed, was a healthy level of attachment. He had compassion. That he learned from his strength of character, a strength he learned as a result of their teachings and his many trials.

I think that the problem with @Tramp Graphics argument is that you assume that these choices are binary, right vs wrong. In reality Ben and Yoda had a large number of options available to them, some better and some worse. This is my problem with the 0 conflict awarded for choosing the so-called lesser of two evils.

Let's think about a hypothetical. In this case there are three options:

1) the character can do something that leads to something that hurts many people (emotionally, physically, whatever)

2) the character can do something that hurts only one person

3) the character can do something that doesn't hurt anybody

By your argument, if the character has these three options and chooses #2, they garner 0 conflict. They chose to do something that was the lesser of two evils (of course a better option remained). This is really how life works, there are often multiple choices with some of those in the gray area. It's also one way of thinking about the lies that Ben and Yoda told, if we assume there was a third (better) option.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda was training Luke to be a Jedi, not necessarily kill his father. Not once during Luke's training does Yoda say anything about defeating Vader.

Well now...

Quote

Luke Skywalker: There is still good in him.

Obi-Wan: He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil.

Luke Skywalker: I can't do it, Ben.

Obi-Wan: You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Darth Vader again.

Luke Skywalker: I can't kill my own father.

Obi-Wan: Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.

Technically, Obi-wan says it, so you are correct. From a certain point of view.

Then again, Yoda was perfectly fine with killing the **** out of Palpatine and Anakin/Vader back in Revenge of the Sith, and if he has had a change of heart about it, he never voices it.

But Obi-wan, who lied, and not only by omission, totally was planning to have Luke kill his own father. I'm not saying he's sacrificed himself on the Death Star to motivate Luke to deal with Vader... but it turned out to do just that until Luke found out the truth. Luke was all raring to go in murderizing Vader up until the point when he found out the truth. And what was the result Obi-wan predicted from Luke's wavering?

Quote

Obi-Wan: Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.

You can bring any secondary or tertiary sources you like, but the primary source pretty much suggests what Obi-wan's plan was regarding withholding the truth, and there is not a thing suggesting Yoda wasn¨'t in on it.

Does that make them horrible people? Well, yeah, a little, but it's not like they didn't have good cause. And I'm sure the told themselves, and perhaps even believed that it was for Luke's own good, but it was also awfully convenient for their own goal. It is, however, perhaps to be expected. The Jedi order style of emotional support is after all what pushed Anakin straight into Palpatine's arms.

It's a bit nebulous exactly what a lightside paragon should be, but from the movies it's pretty **** clear that it's not the prequel-era Jedi.

Not Obi-wan.

Not Yoda.

Mace Windu?

Quote

Mace Windu: [has Palpatine subdued] I'm going to put an end to this, once and for all!

Anakin Skywalker: You can't. He must stand trial.

Mace Windu: He has control of the senate and all the courts. He is too dangerous to be left alive!

Supreme Chancellor: [exhausted and disfigured] But, I'm too weak. Don't kill me.

Anakin Skywalker: That's not the Jedi way. He must live.

[Windu ignores Anakin, still intending to kill Palpatine]

Well, I guess it's ok to bend the rules, even your own rules, a little if it's convenient. I'm sure it was only going to happen that one time. And Mace Windu was a seasoned Master, it's not like they hand out the mandate to break rules, particularly their own rules, to what they see as an unstable wild card, right?

Quote

Anakin Skywalker: You're asking to do something against the Jedi code, against the Republic, against a mentor and a friend. That's what out of place here. Why are you asking this of me?

Obi-wan: The council is asking you.

Oh well, it's not like someone has argued that Jedi follow the rules... That was a rhetorical question laced with sarcasm, because you did that Trampy.

So, yeah, the prequel Jedi were out of whack (sorry for the technical term), and that includes Lukes mentors.

Sure, in the end, Luke's compassion is what saved the day, but he didn't learn that from Obi-wan and Yoda. He held on to his compassion, his emotional attachment, in the face of their disapproval.

2 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I think that the problem with @Tramp Graphics argument is that you assume that these choices are binary, right vs wrong. In reality Ben and Yoda had a large number of options available to them, some better and some worse. This is my problem with the 0 conflict awarded for choosing the so-called lesser of two evils.

Let's think about a hypothetical. In this case there are three options:

1) the character can do something that leads to something that hurts many people (emotionally, physically, whatever)

2) the character can do something that hurts only one person

3) the character can do something that doesn't hurt anybody

By your argument, if the character has these three options and chooses #2, they garner 0 conflict. They chose to do something that was the lesser of two evils (of course a better option remained). This is really how life works, there are often multiple choices with some of those in the gray area. It's also one way of thinking about the lies that Ben and Yoda told, if we assume there was a third (better) option.

Yup.

RAW supports this.

There's clearly an expectation of varying degrees of right and wrong. Selfish and selfless. Fully within the Will of the Force, or just some. However you want to state it, the acknowledgment of varying degrees is all over.

This is evidenced by the bit on p. 324 that talks about taking character intentions into consideration, and how "overtly evil" and "overly selfish" actions warrant 1-5 more Conflict. The Conflict table thereby being the "base levels" of Conflict for "less-than overt evil" or "less-than overly selfish" actions (such as lying and stealing to help yourself/your cause, but simultabeously hurting others). And the bit about "gray areas". And the bit about how the GM has the final say (the absolute view of course only taking into account the player/PCs).

Pay no mind to @Tramp Graphics, he just started his argument from a place he quickly realized is indefensible, so he just sucks up all the air on the room that he can, states his "interpretation" like it's fact, and thereby hopes no one notices that he is and was obviously wrong, or just gives up trying to state their case.

2 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I think that the problem with @Tramp Graphics argument is that you assume that these choices are binary, right vs wrong. In reality Ben and Yoda had a large number of options available to them, some better and some worse. This is my problem with the 0 conflict awarded for choosing the so-called lesser of two evils.

Let's think about a hypothetical. In this case there are three options:

1) the character can do something that leads to something that hurts many people (emotionally, physically, whatever)

2) the character can do something that hurts only one person

3) the character can do something that doesn't hurt anybody

By your argument, if the character has these three options and chooses #2, they garner 0 conflict. They chose to do something that was the lesser of two evils (of course a better option remained). This is really how life works, there are often multiple choices with some of those in the gray area. It's also one way of thinking about the lies that Ben and Yoda told, if we assume there was a third (better) option.

Except it isn’t the “lesser of two evils”. It was the right thing to do. Luke was not emotionally mature enough to handle knowing the truth about Vader. He didn’t have the emotional stability, the discipline, or the maturity to handle that. Ben had two choices: lie and tell Luke that his dad was a hero who died at the hands of a monster, and thus inspire him to become a hero as well, or tell him that his father was a monster who slaughtered thousands, and crush him emotionally, leaving him easy pickings for the Emperor. There were no other options.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Well now...

Technically, Obi-wan says it, so you are correct. From a certain point of view.

Then again, Yoda was perfectly fine with killing the **** out of Palpatine and Anakin/Vader back in Revenge of the Sith, and if he has had a change of heart about it, he never voices it.

But Obi-wan, who lied, and not only by omission, totally was planning to have Luke kill his own father. I'm not saying he's sacrificed himself on the Death Star to motivate Luke to deal with Vader... but it turned out to do just that until Luke found out the truth. Luke was all raring to go in murderizing Vader up until the point when he found out the truth. And what was the result Obi-wan predicted from Luke's wavering?

You can bring any secondary or tertiary sources you like, but the primary source pretty much suggests what Obi-wan's plan was regarding withholding the truth, and there is not a thing suggesting Yoda wasn¨'t in on it.

Does that make them horrible people? Well, yeah, a little, but it's not like they didn't have good cause. And I'm sure the told themselves, and perhaps even believed that it was for Luke's own good, but it was also awfully convenient for their own goal. It is, however, perhaps to be expected. The Jedi order style of emotional support is after all what pushed Anakin straight into Palpatine's arms.

It's a bit nebulous exactly what a lightside paragon should be, but from the movies it's pretty **** clear that it's not the prequel-era Jedi.

Not Obi-wan.

Not Yoda.

Mace Windu?

Well, I guess it's ok to bend the rules, even your own rules, a little if it's convenient. I'm sure it was only going to happen that one time. And Mace Windu was a seasoned Master, it's not like they hand out the mandate to break rules, particularly their own rules, to what they see as an unstable wild card, right?

Oh well, it's not like someone has argued that Jedi follow the rules... That was a rhetorical question laced with sarcasm, because you did that Trampy.

So, yeah, the prequel Jedi were out of whack (sorry for the technical term), and that includes Lukes mentors.

Sure, in the end, Luke's compassion is what saved the day, but he didn't learn that from Obi-wan and Yoda. He held on to his compassion, his emotional attachment, in the face of their disapproval.

His sacrifice on the Death Star was to give Luke and the others a chance to escape. This is born out when his spirit tells Luke, “Run, Luke, run!” What motivated Luke was his love for his friends, and his desire to protect them and defeat the Empire. He cut his training short, not to fight Vader, but to save his friends. Yoda taught Luke to not let his emotions control him. Both Ben and Yoda told him to avoid giving in to hate, and not to seek revenge. As Ben said, “Don’t give in to hate. That leads to the Dark Side.” Also, neither Ben nor Yoda told Luke to kill Vader. They said that he had to confront him. He had to face him again. Did they expect that he would probably have to kill him? Yes. They believed Vader couldn’t be redeemed.

4 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Yup.

RAW supports this.

There's clearly an expectation of varying degrees of right and wrong. Selfish and selfless.

This is evidenced by the bit on p. 324 that talks about taking character intentions into consideration, and how "overtly evil" and "overly selfish" actions warrant 1-5 more Conflict. The Conflict table thereby being the "base levels" of Conflict for "less-than overt evil" or "less-than overly selfish" actions (such as lying and stealing to help yourself/your cause, but simultabeously hurting others).

Pay no mind to @Tramp Graphics, he just started his argument from a place he quickly realized is indefensible, so he just sucks up all the air on the room that he can, states his "interpretation" like it's fact, and thereby hopes no one notices that he is and was obviously wrong, or just gives up trying to state their case.

There’s one major flaw in that belief. RAW says that Lying for Personal Gain garners only one Conflict. By your reasoning lying for the benefit of others is no better than lying for selfish gain. That is 100% against RAW, and contrary to Jedi teaching, and the Will of the Force. That is why the RAW explicitly states that it is only lying for personal gain that garners any Conflict.

It is nothing more than an imposition of your personal morality that telling the truth is always the right thing to do, and that lying is inherently wrong, that Jedi need to be scrupulously honest when this is not the case.

RAW states that lying for the benefit of others does not garner any Conflict. Lying for personal gain does, and even then, only one Conflict. You would give someone the exact same amount of Conflict regardless of his reasoning. That is against RAW. Since Lying for personal gain garners only one Conflict to begin with, the Devs did set it up as a binary choice: lying selfish gain garners one Conflict, Lying for the benefit of others garners zero Conflict. That is a pretty binary choice. There’s no wiggle room or shades of grey there. You are lumping Lying for the benefit of others in with lying for personal gain, as if both are inherently wrong. And this is not only false, it is contrary to RAW.

Ben “lied” to protect Luke, to shelter him from a harsh truth that he was not yet ready for. Thus, by RAW, he would gain no Conflict.

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Also, neither Ben nor Yoda told Luke to kill Vader.

Oh?

Quote

Luke Skywalker: I can't kill my own father.

Obi-Wan: Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.

Not edited out: Obi-Wan: Well, let's hope it wont come to killing, but you need to be ready, just in case.

Even if Obi-wan didn't believe it was absolutely necessary for Luke to kill Vader, he was fine with letting Luke believe it was.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

They said that he had to confront him. He had to face him again. Did they expect that he would probably have to kill him? Yes. They believed Vader couldn’t be redeemed.

In other words, they needed him to face Vader and kill him. Gotcha.

24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except it isn’t the “lesser of two evils”. It was the right thing to do. Luke was not emotionally mature enough to handle knowing the truth about Vader. He didn’t have the emotional stability, the discipline, or the maturity to handle that. Ben had two choices: lie and tell Luke that his dad was a hero who died at the hands of a monster, and thus inspire him to become a hero as well, or tell him that his father was a monster who slaughtered thousands, and crush him emotionally, leaving him easy pickings for the Emperor. There were no other options.

Yeah, it's not like Ben could have said "He was destroyed in the war" and simply not elaborate on it, but no, he had to specifically name Vader. Obi-wan might not have realized that this would focus Luke's hate on Vader, given the Jedi's abysmal insight into human emotion, but that only pushes it from malicious manipulation to a dangerous mistake. Regardless, had Obi-wan's concerns been solely on an immature youths safety, he shouldn't have painted a target on the most dangerous man in the galaxy.

I reiterate my main point, considering that one of central tenets of Jedi order, about emotional attachments, turned out to be dead wrong*, Jedi and their behavior should not be held up as lightside paragons.

*When Anakin confides in Yoda about fearing the death of those he loves, Yoda merely tells him that he needs to learn not care about it and offers nothing in the way of comfort. This drives Anakin to Palpatine in desperation. Obi-wan and Yoda tell Luke he must let go of his attachments so he can be able to kill his father. Had Luke done so the emperor would have won, either by Luke not finding the strength to defeat Vader after he threatens Leia, or find the compassion to spare Vader and not falling to the dark side. Luke did this despite Obi-wan's and Yoda's teachings, not because of them.

Both Obi Wan and Yoda explicitly warn Luke to not hate; that hate leads to the Dark Side. Secondly, Luke asked Ben specifically how his father died. He wanted a concrete answer. Had Ben gone your proposed route of a vague “he was destroyed in the war,” Luke would have asked for more details it doesn’t answer his question, it dodges it. Ben needed to give Luke a concrete answer. That is what Luke wanted. He needed an actual answer, not more vague bs, not a runaround. He wanted details.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

RAW states that lying for the benefit of others does not garner any Conflict.

For the millionth time, Tramp, those words are not written anywhere. It does not say that lying for the benefit of others garners no Conflict, only that some lies benefitting others garner no Conflict. Nor does it say that any and all lies may be told for the benefit of others.

You're inverting logical conclusions and creating your own qualifiers, each and every time you open your mouth, and pretending it's written somewhere.

...because you must, apparently, to not go even more insane.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Lying for personal gain does

And the difference between "Some lies for the benefit of others" and "Lying for personal gain" when those two are blurred - because in play it can easily emerge where a lie benefits you/your cause/your others, but damages yet a third party, making your action unequivocally due to some portion of personal gain as it is certainly not everyone's gain - is explicitly, in RAW, left to the GM to decide.

This is the "less than overtly evil" or "less than overtly selfish".

Some lies, that don't harm anyone, may be told without warranting Conflict, but not all lies, because some lies can be for personal gain and benefit your cause. So not those lies that hurt others, because those are unarguably in that area of some degree of personal gain.

And since you've perviously admitted that what I said about RAW allowing for this is true.

You have finally admitted that you are wrong.

Thank you.

Also, thank you for picking up my rhetoric about the Will of the Force. I've been explaining the d10 Morality roll in those terms for probably a year now.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except it isn’t the “lesser of two evils”. It was the right thing to do. Luke was not emotionally mature enough to handle knowing the truth about Vader. He didn’t have the emotional stability, the discipline, or the maturity to handle that. Ben had two choices: lie and tell Luke that his dad was a hero who died at the hands of a monster, and thus inspire him to become a hero as well, or tell him that his father was a monster who slaughtered thousands, and crush him emotionally, leaving him easy pickings for the Emperor. There were no other options.

There were clearly other options open to him, it was not a choice between the most dangerous lie he could fathom or the most crushing truth he could imagine. I see how Lucas stilted writing style evident in the prequels could make it seem that way, but it's not. Obi-Wan could have said Anakin was lost during the war, that he fell during the battle of Mustafar or any other of the half truths which the Jedi are fond of. Of course Luke would want to know more and press for details, but Obi-Wan is an adult and rather good at being manipulative from what we see in the Clone Wars, he should be able to easily dodge those questions and promise the truth later on. Instead he goes with the lie that sets up the child of his best friends on a path for vengeance against said best friend. The lie is for his own personal gain and that of the Jedi, it also happens to be helpful for Luke at that point. But it also opens him up for Vader to use the truth as a weapon against him.

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

...That is 100% against RAW,....

..., it is contrary to RAW.

Ben “lied” to protect Luke, to shelter him from a harsh truth that he was not yet ready for. Thus, by RAW, he would gain no Conflict.

There has never been in the history of gaming where RAW is absolutely perfect for all situations, or if there is, I haven't played it and welcome suggestions leading me to that system. GMs have to be able to use their judgement and (should) try to do so fairly and consistent with previous decisions.

*Deep breath.*

NNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Personally I do follow the logic that, while he was still alive, Obi-Wan hadn't gained conflict for lying to Luke. The truth would of rightfully crushed him given how emotionally immature he was and Vader at that time had absolutely no idea that any of Padme's offspring had survived, thus withholding it then he simply wasn't ready then for the truth then, with the lie providing motivation to become the hero his father was. Even within Empire Strikes Back, Luke is immediately crushed but then quickly recovers, even holding a telepathic talk with the man he called his father. It just wasn't his destiny to die there and I feel Vader didn't have it in him to kill the only link to his past, despite his posturing suggesting otherwise.

Would it have benefitted him to know going into Bespin? Maybe. But then that was the major plot twist of Episode 5 and they weren't about to blurt out that possible plot twist till the last very moment, though I would argue that Yoda was building up to it; including that cave scene where he struck down himself to indicate that he and Vader were more closely related then he could ever imagine. Just he left quite abruptly and brushed Yoda off; he had bigger things to do then listen to some old man tell him that he should just sacrifice everything he holds dear and in the end, he more or less did nothing while they were there because they rescued themselves. Oh boy, how embarrassing.

Was it hard on him? Yeah, most heroic journeys are just at the end of the day, someone has to be the janitor and it was Luke's destiny to be on ROTA that era. Just because he was such a swell guy, he took the vague descriptions of his role and was like "you know what, my masters only said I had to confront him with vague speeches. Why don't I just try and get through to him?" They largely left it down to him how he achieved it because of how incessantly vague they were. It's literally every kung fu master/ninja master/Asian magic of that movie era to have masters be incredibly vague and open ended with their instructions, something that doesn't necessarily translates well into modern era's of nit-picking, but I felt was done relatively well as the role of every teacher should be to tell you how to do your future occupation/maths, but rather give you every tool to succeed in your future career in a manner of your choosing. This is why characters who don't necessarily chose to follow in the footsteps of their master are successful; because they found their own way without having the set expectation of a teacher saying "you must kill him" like practically every martial arts movie of that era who featured whispy haired Asian men with the power of immortality, or some ki stuff. Here, they just gave him the tools Luke needed to survive and that allowed him the opportunity to succeed in any manner of his choosing, especially if the teacher hadn't considered that avenue of thinking, which is the sign of a good teacher to prepare the student for what they themselves cannot predict.


That's my take on it. Don't much care for reading the EU for the bible, but sometimes the world is a horrible place that requires you to take what little good of it you can; Anakin being separated from his mother was another thing as ultimately that was the harsh reality of that situation that was played out pretty well. He cheated? Sure, but who cares if the Swindeler is cheated when you save a child from poverty, what is the worst that can happen?

*FAST FORWARD TO THE END OF THE REVENGE OF THE SITH.*

"Oh, no."

Justifying that the thing you did wrong was OK because it was done for the benefit of others is still making excuses for bad behavior. If Luke was too emotionally unprepared for the truth, Kenobi had only himself to blame for that. He had wasted 19 years that could have been used to prepare Luke. That wasn't the story Lucas had in mind though, but it would have made far more sense to start forging your anti-Sith weapon from scratch rather than beating a blade out of a piece of farm equipment.

You guys are still trying to convince Tramp that he is wrong about one of his opinions? Don't you have better things to do with your time than ramming your head against a wall? Like cleaning out belly-button lint, or organizing your sock drawer?

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

You guys are still trying to convince Tramp that he is wrong about one of his opinions? Don't you have better things to do with your time than ramming your head against a wall? Like cleaning out belly-button lint, or organizing your sock drawer?

Done and done. I need something extra to do while waiting for flights and trains.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

You guys are still trying to convince Tramp that he is wrong about one of his opinions? Don't you have better things to do with your time than ramming your head against a wall? Like cleaning out belly-button lint, or organizing your sock drawer?

It's a good way to scratch that itch without getting into stuff that actually infuriates and/or depresses me, such as politics.

Also, last time I tried to clean out my belly button I nearly lost two fingers. Nowadays I play it safe and send in a professional cleaning crew every other month or so.

I think this discussion has been very productive, even if the Obi-one v Luke case study was a little (or very much) off the deep end. These discussions have helped me solidify my viewpoints a bit more. I’ll be using Conflict to represent the internal struggle for each character. For this to work, I’ll assume that:

· All sentients in SW have a basic, innate sense of right vs wrong that is consistent for all characters and

· That basic sense of right and wrong is consistent with the ‘will of the force’ or at least the basic forces of dark vs light

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons will still earn Conflict because the person will still feel conflicted for doing something they perceive is wrong, even if justified, but not as much Conflict as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Though I agree that this is highly situational.

I think this is consistent with the guidelines for Conflict as described in the CRB and it will help me with future encounters in my game. As I’ve noted earlier this will vary by table and GM, just summarizing my thoughts.

A final sticking point with this is what happens if a character has committed to be a dark sider and has no care for right v wrong. Well then, you should probably visit the topic ‘So you’ve fallen to the dark side, now what?’

3 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I think this discussion has been very productive, even if the Obi-one v Luke case study was a little (or very much) off the deep end. These discussions have helped me solidify my viewpoints a bit more. I’ll be using Conflict to represent the internal struggle for each character. For this to work, I’ll assume that:

· All sentients in SW have a basic, innate sense of right vs wrong that is consistent for all characters and

· That basic sense of right and wrong is consistent with the ‘will of the force’ or at least the basic forces of dark vs light

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons will still earn Conflict because the person will still feel conflicted for doing something they perceive is wrong, even if justified, but not as much Conflict as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

I think this is consistent with the guidelines for Conflict as described in the CRB and it will help me with future encounters in my game. As I’ve noted earlier this will vary by table and GM, just summarizing my thoughts.

As an addition, it's worth keeping in mind that just because you get conflict does not mean you are wrong and/or evil. Sometimes there just isn't any non-conflict path to take. The most lightside path to take is probably a detached, non-interventionist approach, but push that too far, and you probably garner some conflict for knowing inaction.

How to deal with someone like Palpatine surrendering? If you play Jedi-ish characters in the imperial era, there's really nowhere to keep him locked up, and killing him isn't really the right way to go either. You're probably going to take conflict no matter what you do. This is fine. A dilemma shouldn't have a right thing to do, but maybe a less bad one. There isn't always a third option, nor should there be. Of course, get too much into the habit of habit of doing bad stuff because it's necessary and you will be slippery-sloping towards the dark side. This is also fine. It should be damned hard to stay on top of lightside paragon status, and this also fine. Lately, I've been thinking of the the whole lightside-darkside thing as less of a linear scale with light and dark at either end, and more like a bell curve with light at the top in the middle and dark at both ends. It gels better with the idea that light is balance rather than balance being a mix of light and dark (and spares us "grey" jedi ).

1 hour ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

A final sticking point with this is what happens if a character has committed to be a dark sider and has no care for right v wrong. Well then, you should probably visit the topic ‘So you’ve fallen to the dark side, now what?’

I've had a PC tell me (after some dramatic story events that made them immediately decide that their personal power/getting revenge was the most important thing to them), 'I embrace the Darkside.'

I allowed them to go directly from like upper-50s Morality to 30, just based on the narrative decision to embrace the Darkside. Though making them "earn" their Darkside status through Conflict if they're still in the Light range is fine too.

From there, you continue to use the Morality rules as written (PC now favors dark pips, takes Strain to use light, and must flip a - still from the player-pool, still light - Destiny Point, they still take Conflict for using dark pips), they handle Darksider PCs just fine.

Arguably, it may be important to the narrative for Obi-Wan and Yoda (both NPCs) to be wrong (as in mistaken not evil) so that Luke (the PC) can transcend their teachings*.

This works with the prequels, where for all their hand-wringing (which I do believe was genuine), they still light up those sabers with a "ya gotta do what you gotta do" attitude.

This works with the sequels, where after years of trying to bring the Jedi back that endeavor (and likely the training of his youth) got into his head and he pondered laser-swording the darkness before moving back to his more compassionate self.

Its hard to blame Luke, after that, for thinking that Jedi dogma had to die... he just threw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Through Rey (his student) and Yoda (his former teacher, who himself seems to be sporting the wisdom of the afterlife) Luke revisits his stance with more clarity and reaches, well maybe not a different conclusion but certainly a different understanding of it.

*The Conflict to be accounted "by the book" is Luke's not his mentors'.

24 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Lately, I've been thinking of the the whole lightside-darkside thing as less of a linear scale with light and dark at either end, and more like a bell curve with light at the top in the middle and dark at both ends.

Had to ponder this as to how it would work, graphically. I could imagine the X axis is action severity. 0 is no action, 100 is severe action (on a 100 scale). Light side score would be on the Y axis (let's just say on a 100 scale also). In this case, taking no action or minimal action would result in no light side points. Taking severe action, perhaps outright killing the antagonist would result in 0 light side points. In this case the light side points would be maximum at the level of severity that produces a result without going too far. Not a perfect model, but interesting concept, it would give you a bell curve (if you were acting like a Jedi). The component that is missing is what score is needed to achieve the result?

15 hours ago, emsquared said:

For the millionth time, Tramp, those words are not written anywhere. It does not say that lying for the benefit of others garners no Conflict, only that some lies benefitting others garner no Conflict. Nor does it say that any and all lies may be told for the benefit of others.

You're inverting logical conclusions and creating your own qualifiers, each and every time you open your mouth, and pretending it's written somewhere.

...because you must, apparently, to not go even more insane.

And the difference between "Some lies for the benefit of others" and "Lying for personal gain" when those two are blurred - because in play it can easily emerge where a lie benefits you/your cause/your others, but damages yet a third party, making your action unequivocally due to some portion of personal gain as it is certainly not everyone's gain - is explicitly, in RAW, left to the GM to decide.

This is the "less than overtly evil" or "less than overtly selfish".

Some lies, that don't harm anyone, may be told without warranting Conflict, but not all lies, because some lies can be for personal gain and benefit your cause. So not those lies that hurt others, because those are unarguably in that area of some degree of personal gain.

And since you've perviously admitted that what I said about RAW allowing for this is true.

You have finally admitted that you are wrong.

Thank you.

Also, thank you for picking up my rhetoric about the Will of the Force. I've been explaining the d10 Morality roll in those terms for probably a year now.

No. What the rule says is that a person who lies for personal gain garners one Conflict. IT then says that some lies don't garner Conflict at all. It then clarifies this by adding it's if they are for selfless reasons. It does not say that some lies done for selfless reasons don't garner conflict. It says that some lies don't garner Conflict, but only if they are done for the benefit of others.

From the table:

Quote

Conflict Received: 1 Action, Lying for Personal Gain. The PC tells a lie for selfish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others.

That is what the rule says. Some lies can be told without Conflict. Those lies have to be for the benefit of others. If a lie is for selfish gain, it garners one Conflict. If it is for the benefit of others, it garners no Conflict. It is that simple. The rule does not say that only some lies that benefit others garner no Conflict. It says that Lies which are for Personal Gain garner Conflict and lies that are for the benefit of others garner no Conflict. The wording is different, but that is the rule.

And for the record, I have sent this question in the the Developers.