Jedi and evil actions

[Ivan]

OK, a few years ago I was involved in a WEG Star Wars game when a huge contrversy croped up.

With out going going in to to much detale; Jedi character became aware of another PC about to perform an evil act. Due to the situition in game said Jedi was unable to prevent the other PC from taking this action(in this case excuting a prisioner the Jedi tried to prevent the bounty hunter from doing this.) GM threatened to give jedi a dark side point, because he let an evil action take place. An argument ensued, the Jedi player saying that he had tried to prevent the killing and that intent should be enough.

So whos side do you come down on the Jedi, because he attempted to stop evil, or the GM the very act tainting taking place in the Jedis presece tainting his soul.

I figure with the collected wisdom on these boards we should get a good debate out of this.

[Supreme Serpent]

Based just on that, I'd be on the player's side. Less of a slippery slope. Otherwise, due to evil going on in the universe, all Jedi quickly go to the dark side.

If he tried to stop it, failed, and then just turned his "PC sense" back on and did nothing about it (like lightsaber-ing the bounty hunter in half or turning him in to the authorities) then the GM has more of a point.

[Outsider]

If the Jedi honestly tried his best to prevent the evil act, I'd not hit him with any darkside points.

Continuing to hang out with the evil bounty hunter and claiming him as 'comrade' might mess him up though.

[austenandrews]

Right, it's not like Yoda and Obi-Wan went Dark Side because they failed to stop Palpatine. For that matter, justified inaction shouldn't constitute a Dark Side action, either. Yoda wasn't obligated to travel the galaxy fighting evil; self-exile on Degobah was just fine.

Of course I think "Dark Side points" are unnecessary to begin with. In the films, the Dark Side was much squishier than that.

[Ivan]

Let me clarify one point, the GM was not saying that any evil in the galaxy, his point was an evil act in close proxcimity to the Jedi. The argument was that the attempt, sucsessful or not was enough. The GM's piont was that the Jedi had not prevented said act when it took place in the near area.

[austenandrews]

The GM is wrong.

[Jhamin]

The argument was that the attempt, sucsessful or not was enough. The GM's piont was that the Jedi had not prevented said act when it took place in the near area.


What this GM decided to do (penalize the Jedi because his action was not enough) assumes that there is some kind of external agency that only sees what happens, not what he meant. This is where I think alot of people go wrong with Jedi. They are not Paladin with lasers.

Paladin get holy power from some (usually) sentient force for good in their game world. Their patron powers are looking at what use these abilites are being put to. They lose their powers because they were not acting in accordance with their patron's wishes. Intentions don't really matter, they are judged externally.

Jedi are dedicated to a philosopy that trains them in their connection to a field of energy they learn to control. They go dark side because they begin to use that power for selfish purposes. Intentions are everything, there is no external force that decides if you are a dark jedi or not, it is all about what you are willing to do.

[Teflon Billy]

It's pretty clear from the films (but has never been translated to the games, ever) is how a Force user falls to the Darkside is always a very personal thing. The things that finally tips a person over from someone who don't walk the straight and narrow to someone who has had their soul corrupted by the evil that is the Darkside varies very much from individual to individual.

From RotJ all it would have taken for Luke to be tipped over was killing the Emperor or Vader in anger/rage. But Anakin slaughtered an entire village without fully falling (though I'm sure he slid pretty far down the mountain towards the cliff that is the Fall)

So, any hard an fast rules on how and when a Character falls isn't well supported by what we see on screen, so translating it directly into cold and mechanical game rules doesn't lend itself to the genre IMO.

TB

[austenandrews]

Jedi are dedicated to a philosopy that trains them in their connection to a field of energy they learn to control. They go dark side because they begin to use that power for selfish purposes. Intentions are everything, there is no external force that decides if you are a dark jedi or not, it is all about what you are willing to do.
I would say that motivation rather than intention is what matters. Anakin had good intentions but selfish motivation. But I agree with you; I'm just splitting hairs. :)

[Thia Halmades]

*massive post clipped for rambling and too many references.*

The GM is wrong, I'm with AA & TB on this. The Fall is a dramatic event, which should not be either 'created' by the DM or enforced by him without full disclosure and communication with the player. A great DM is going to do everything they can to create a real, tangible world where the PC is stressed to all get-out WITHOUT actively targeting the PC and attempting to rail-road him/her into falling. That ain't right, or even fun.

The idea that one is tainted because a bounty-hunter chose 'dead' over 'alive' in their presence is absurd. That's not how things work, nor how they should work. The Dark Side is a dramatic effect that should be used to propel the story, more than a game mechanic that is used to punish a player's poor or slow decision making. it should absolutly not be used to enforce the DMs idea of what "he says" a Jedi is about without consult from the other PCs on the nature of the ruling.

Bleh. What a tool.

[Nolgroth]

I'm not familiar with the Star Wars RPG, so I have little comment on the mechanical aspect of the situation. It seems to be excessive to me.

What I will comment on is that the whole Jedi morality is completely unrealistic. Human beings are emotional creatures and Jedi are expected to stifle emotions in favor of emptiness and calm. As far as I can tell, every human jedi was a time bomb waiting to happen.* Indeed, I would rather accept midichlorians than the completely stilted and pathetic morality that Lucas bound to the Jedi.

Not knowing how other species dealt with emotions, I'm not qualified to speak on their behalf.


* In order of appearance,
Vader was evil.

Palpatine was evil.

Luke Skywalker almost succumbed to the Dark Side when Vader threatened to turn Leia to the Dark Side.

Qui Gon Jinn was good. He didn't show any on-screen tendency towards the Dark Side. Don't know much about his past through and may have gone through his own cycle of temptation and rejection of the Dark Side. Still, I will call him as the only one of the humans not to have shown any overriding anger when fighting.

Obi Wan was most assuredly feeling emotions when he witnessed Qui Gon Jinn killed. He didn't engage Darth Maul, he outright assaulted him with malice and ill will. Arguably, this was, like Luke's second encounter with Vader, something that served to focus Obi Wan's resolve to not be tempted by the Dark Side

Count Dooku was evil.

If Mace Windu wasn't angry when he was about to strike down Palpatine, then I was completely mis-reading the emotions on his face. As it stands, he was feeling emotions and in Lucasland that means they were clouding his judgement and leading him down the path to the Dark Side.
So we got three confirmed evil human force users, two that almost slid to the Dark Side, one that may have given over to the Dark Side, and one that was the model of Jedi restraint. Did I miss any? Is any human really capable of living up to the angelic standard of morality Lucas insisted was the Jedi way? I don't think so. If I were to ever run a Star Wars-based game, the whole morality thing would be a little more "flexible." Being evil is a commitment.

Of course, I've speculated elsewhere that the Force may feed on emotions and thus "amplify" them. Good people like Ghandi or Mother Theresa may be so pure that this amplification serves only to strengthen their desire to serve and help others. Others, like Anakin genuinely feel love, but fear that it is going to be taken away and the Force amplified emotions cause even their pure emotions to become twisted. In time, the person becomes so twisted with Force fed (sorry had to) emotions that they truly don't know how to find their way back to being a good person. They accept what they've become.

This is why Jedi always seek to maintain personal control. An emotional outburst may not turn them to the Dark Side, but continual dwelling on emotions leads to a slippery slope kind of situation. Even one little bit of doubt could lead to a fall from grace. On the other hand, so long as one still has the potential for goodness (Vader), then those emotions may be something to redeem him from the Dark Side. Those that consciously choose to exploit the darker emotions (Palpatine, Dooku) may not ever be redeemed

Hope I didn't diverge too much from the topic or intent of the thread.

[austenandrews]

nolgroth, doesn't your list itself belie the notion that Lucas imposed a "stilted and pathetic morality" on the Jedi? The characters he wrote did not seem terribly confined emotionally. They had a code against attachment - standard monk asceticism - and against succumbing to anger and aggression, but not against being human (as it were).

I think what a lot of people mistake for a lack of emotion among the Jedi boils down to poor acting. I'm not being facetious there, alas.

[BlackSword]

nolgroth, doesn't your list itself belie the notion that Lucas imposed a "stilted and pathetic morality" on the Jedi? The characters he wrote did not seem terribly confined emotionally. They had a code against attachment - standard monk asceticism - and against succumbing to anger and aggression, but not against being human (as it were).

I think what a lot of people mistake for a lack of emotion among the Jedi boils down to poor acting. I'm not being facetious there, alas.
I am willing to give some benefit of the doubt to the movies, and they did show how the road to hades is paved with good intentions, and how noble emotions and virtues can be corrupted by guile (and how they can be uncorrupted).

The translation of the Jedi Code into games for the most part has been lacking. The scenario starting off this thread is a good example. Jhamin, TB, and AA all make excellent points that the slide to the dark side is personal and will vary from one character to another. Its all in the role-playing, but the gaming companies want to codify it more so that it is a rule, and at that point defining the jedi morality and the fall to the dark side fails.

[austenandrews]

Its all in the role-playing, but the gaming companies want to codify it more so that it is a rule, and at that point defining the jedi morality and the fall to the dark side fails.
I partly understand, in that a great many RPGers don't roleplay so much as "game," and would not be likely to roleplay something that wasn't codified. I don't agree, but I understand the motive.

But I think there's a larger problem that drives such codification - the notion that certain abilities are exclusively "Dark Side powers" and thus only available to those with some game mechanics prerequisite. I don't agree. I think Force powers are Force powers, neutral in morality. Their use determines good or evil, which is to say, how they're roleplayed. But again, roleplaying is not necessarily foremost on the minds of game designers.

[dbsousa]

In the space opera game I run occasionally, my Jedi like heroes' active points cap for powers can not exceed their Psych Lims plus earned XP. The psych Lims can not be bought down, only exchanged for "darker" or "crazier" Psych Lims, if the character chooses.

[Outsider]

Thats a pretty cool idea.

When changed, can the psych lims be bought up to increase the jedi's (now darker) power?

Example :

Jedi Bob is 'In love with Princess Sue' (Common, Strong : 15 points)

Then Princess Sue is kidnapped by Rigellian Rabbit Men, hooked on drugs, forced into prostitution, and eventually kills herself by overdose. (Or so Jedi Bob is led to believe by Secret Sith Sam)

Now, Bob has a couple options.
First, he can choose to keep "In Love with Princess Sue", which I would rule (since Princess Sue is dead (or is she?)) becomes an uncommon/total* (still 15 points) that mainly acts to interfere with his ability to ever fall in love again, and maybe makes him someone people (especially women) dont like talking to Bob about. (Princess Tina : "Sure, its kinda romantic that he's still carrying this torch for her, but she's been dead 10 years, and nobody could have been as perfect as he makes her out to be! I'm tired of hearing about how I just dont measure up!")

Second, he could replace "In Love with Pricess Sue" with the darker "Hates Rigellian Rabbit Men" (Common Strong, 15 Points)

But...

Could he totally flip out and replace it with "Will not suffer a Rigellian Rabbit Man to Live" (Common Total, 20 points) and up his Force active point cap by 5 points?

[Curufea]

Well, we all know that Rigellian Rabbit Men should all be killed anyway - such an evil and ambitious race. Who could forget the CyberCarrot massacre of '08 and the Carrotine Wars of Succession?

Is it a "Darkside" trait to want to kill an evil race?
Sure, an evil character can have their inherent Nummy Goodness appealed to, just in time for them to martyr themselves and make their life's work meaningless - but, can you do the same to an entire race?

[Dauntless]

I agree with Jhamin. There is no external judge or enforcer of correct action. But the jedi is both his own judge, and yet not at a judge at all.

Seeing as how the Jedi "code" is largely an import of eastern philosophies, I think the true moral compass is internal rather than external. Remember how Palpatine exchanged some words basically saying that the Jedi were selfless and the Sith were totally selfish? This indicates that one of the goals of a Jedi is to forget the idea of the self. In another revealing tidbit of JEdi philosophy, Anakin asks Yoda how he is to deal with the images of a "friend" dying. Yoda tells Anakin that he must train himself to let go of the things he desires.

What does this say? The Jedi have but one judge...themselves. Would a jedi blame himself for failing to prevent the killing? No. Remember another piece of Jedi advice...live in the moment and be mindful of the present, do not dwell on the past (yet another philosophical rip straight from Buddhism). But how does a jedi judge his own actions? When do his actions become actions of the Dark Side?

Simple...when they are selfish or act based out of emotion.

There's a whole section in philosophy that deals with these ethical questions. Look up Deontological arguments or Consequential arguments. But to put things in an oversimplified nutshell, a Jedi would not believe that the Ends Justifies the Means. Or in this case, that the Ends Justifies the Rewards/Punishment. To the Jedi, only the now is important and how one acts accordingly. The outcome is irrelevant.

Jedi Code
There is no emotion; there is peace.
There is no ignorance; there is knowledge.
There is no passion; there is serenity.
There is no death; there is the Force.

A true jedi would not dwell on guilt, regret, shame or self-pity anymore than he would anger, jealousy, hate and rage. Equanimity is one of the truest signs of a Jedi master. The Dark Side is not necessarily evil, merely selfish and enslaved to passions and emotion.

Just my take on the Jedi philosophy. But if you're curious about this sort of stuff, you might be interested in reading a book called, "The Dharma of Star Wars" by Matthew Bortolin.

[Jaxom]

But I think there's a larger problem that drives such codification - the notion that certain abilities are exclusively "Dark Side powers" and thus only available to those with some game mechanics prerequisite. I don't agree. I think Force powers are Force powers, neutral in morality. Their use determines good or evil, which is to say, how they're roleplayed. But again, roleplaying is not necessarily foremost on the minds of game designers.

While I agree with you on a philosophical level, Lucas did not. It is backed up in his movies and again in the approved books that there are two types of energy that make up the force which are inherently good and bad. Remember the tree on Dagobah where Yoda states that it is a place of the Dark Side. No arguing that the Tree has been malicious. It is simply within the nature of that energy field. I've seen it stated that death and decay contribute to the dark side in some writings but that flies in the face of Dagobah (a swamp planet, full of rot and decay if not death) being a place anyone would work.

Second, we know that only the Sith can use Force Lightning, not because WEG said it, but because Lucas did. There are simply some applications which require the use of Negative Energy (i.e. The Dark Side of the Force).


Now, as for the gaming aspect, I agree that the GM is wrong to attempt to award a Dark Side point to the Jedi the first time the Bounty Hunter tries this unless the Bounty Hunter has been exclaiming all along that he was going to. Failure to act in time is forgivable, failure to act at the critical moment after three sessions of warning is not.

Further, if you continue to fly with the Bounty Hunter and he keeps pulling this kind of stunt eventually one of the two PCs is going to end up hog-tied for the finale every time (see the comment above about predictable behavior).


What does this say? The Jedi have but one judge...themselves. Would a jedi blame himself for failing to prevent the killing? No. Remember another piece of Jedi advice...live in the moment and be mindful of the present, do not dwell on the past (yet another philosophical rip straight from Buddhism). But how does a jedi judge his own actions? When do his actions become actions of the Dark Side?

This passage is the only problem I have with this post. It excuses inaction in any situation. The past is a source of knowledge. The Jedi value knowledge. You cannot ignore the past and no Jedi would. It is one thing not to dwell on the past but it is totally another to ignore it and allow something which is bad to happen a second time.

To go further, expect the Jedi to disarm the Bounty Hunter as soon as the opposition surrenders from here on out. He'll be totally dispassionate about it and simply explain calmly that it is necessary.


Don't get me wrong here... I understand the desire to base this on intention but that is *not* how Lucas wrote his world. And as someone who has played the Bounty Hunter role before, you just gotta understand it when the Jedi cuts the blaster out of your hand because you have a recognizable behavior pattern. Between the two of you someone is going to change their world-view and if it's the Jedi you can fully expect the Dark Side points to start flying.

[Brother Jim]

if i remember the WEG rules right, strictly by your description, no the GM shouldn't have done that.
but also according to the WEG rules if your character tried to TK the bounty hunter (even just to take his weapon) that automatically gets a Dark Side point.
i always thought that getting a Dark Side point for dropping the energy cell out of a blaster that someone is going to shoot you with was stupid.

[austenandrews]

While I agree with you on a philosophical level, Lucas did not. It is backed up in his movies and again in the approved books that there are two types of energy that make up the force which are inherently good and bad.
I don't do EU. Neither does Lucas. It's Hayden Blackmon and those guys at the Ranch who manage the handling of the license. The prequels demonstrated pretty clearly how much Lucas cares about the EU.


Remember the tree on Dagobah where Yoda states that it is a place of the Dark Side. No arguing that the Tree has been malicious.
"That place is strong with the Dark Side. In you must go. Your weapons - you will not need them."

That's the sum total of what was said about "the tree." Everything else has been added by the EU or the fans (even "the tree" - Yoda talks about "the cave"). Though I confess, I get a kick out of the thought of a "malicious tree." It sits there despising Yoda with its every leaf. "Laugh now, Jedi," it says in his mind, "but in ten years my roots will have reached your hut. Who will be laughing then?!" We once worked out that the Dark Tree must have killed the Good Tree, and Obi-Wan's spirit sits on its spirit log in ROTJ.

(Personally I think "the failure at the cave" was a mind trick that Yoda played to test Luke. But that's a controversial stance. :))


Second, we know that only the Sith can use Force Lightning, not because WEG said it, but because Lucas did. There are simply some applications which require the use of Negative Energy (i.e. The Dark Side of the Force).
Watch the prequels. If only the Sith can throw Force lightning and the Sith haven't been seen for a thousand years, how is it that Yoda and Obi-Wan so casually deflect it? How do Yoda and Mace Windu throw it back at their opponents? Because it's nothing new. I have no doubt Yoda could whip up some lightning any time he felt like it. He doesn't, though, for the same reason that the Jedi don't Force choke people. There are almost always better ways to accomplish a goal. It certainly doesn't seem to violate the Jedi code to throw Force lightning back at someone who's throwing it at you - no Dark Side required.

Of course Palpatine's talk of the Sith keeping people from dying was a lie to string Anakin along. There's a grand total of one possible technique that a Sith uses which there's no evidence that the Jedi know. That's Palpatine hiding himself in plain sight. At the same time, it's not until ROTS that Palpatine does anything that actually requires the Force. It may be simply that they don't sense him because he's crafty enough not to use the Force in their presence, and trained well enough to hide his true feelings from their telepathy.

I'm reading a bit into that, of course, but not nearly as much as many fans read into the Force. When you boil it down, the movies really don't say much about the Dark Side, and what they do say is not particularly impressive.

[austenandrews]

i always thought that getting a Dark Side point for dropping the energy cell out of a blaster that someone is going to shoot you with was stupid.
The rules say that? Wow, that's weak.

[Nolgroth]

nolgroth, doesn't your list itself belie the notion that Lucas imposed a "stilted and pathetic morality" on the Jedi? The characters he wrote did not seem terribly confined emotionally. They had a code against attachment - standard monk asceticism - and against succumbing to anger and aggression, but not against being human (as it were).

I think what a lot of people mistake for a lack of emotion among the Jedi boils down to poor acting. I'm not being facetious there, alas.Except that they were required not to be angry or feel hate or seek vengeance. All of these things are human and to expect that a Jedi could not experience these things without the temptation of the Dark Side is pretty unrealistic. I feel anger all the time. It doesn't mean that I'm about to turn into a raving evil maniac. I feel hate. It is almost always uni-directional, but even that is a tempation to hop on the Dark Side train. My list emphasises that to feel and express anything even remotely primal is to court the Lucasland equivelent to demonic possession. It is indeed possible to avoid that fate, but instead of positive emotions such as courage or love, the Jedi are expected to feel nothing. That is a recipe to cause the very thing that Jedi seek to avoid.

[Nolgroth]

I partly understand, in that a great many RPGers don't roleplay so much as "game," and would not be likely to roleplay something that wasn't codified. I don't agree, but I understand the motive.

But I think there's a larger problem that drives such codification - the notion that certain abilities are exclusively "Dark Side powers" and thus only available to those with some game mechanics prerequisite. I don't agree. I think Force powers are Force powers, neutral in morality. Their use determines good or evil, which is to say, how they're roleplayed. But again, roleplaying is not necessarily foremost on the minds of game designers.And this I agree upon. Just as a weapon is not evil, in and of itself, but responds to the wishes of its bearer, so too are force powers.

[Mike W]

Okay, part of the problem with the West End games was that they weren't very smart about how they put the Jedi rules together.(Generally it was a cool game though. I rather liked the system). Soooo....anything Vader or the Emperor did was evil by default unless Luke or Yoda also did it. But if you look at the way the force works, the character is only responsible for his own actions, he tried to stop it, so he's fine. Now if the event happened in a place strong in the Dark Side...maybe he gets a point, but even then, if the Jedi did everything he could to stop it from happening, then I'd say no dark side point. Giving him a dark side point for trying but failing would be adding insult to injury, nor would it make sense given the way the force is supposed to work.

[Mike W]

And this I agree upon. Just as a weapon is not evil, in and of itself, but responds to the wishes of its bearer, so too are force powers.

I do think that certain powers are pretty much "dark side only". Any power that deliberately inflicts pain or tortures someone. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean damage here, I mean using the force specifically to cause pain. i.e. the reverse applications of powers like "Control Another's Pain". I don't see how those cannot be evil by nature.

As far as the avoidance of negative emotions goes. I do think it is possible but it is not done well. Sure, negative emotions happen to everyone, but Jedi are supposed to overcome them, not succumb to them. The problem for most people lies in the fact that the Jedi are supposed to be "empty". This is fine, if you accept the idea of the "empty" or "centered" self from Eastern meditation such as Buddhism, which is probably where Lucas stole it from. The idea is to basically "find your center" where the emotions dissipate and you can look at things objectively. Once that is accomplished, you can reach out to embrace(with positive emotions) the best solution that presents itself. Of course, in the movies they butcher this explanation badly and the West End Games designers reinforced a lot of it.

[Nolgroth]

Okay, part of the problem with the West End games was that they weren't very smart about how they put the Jedi rules together.(Generally it was a cool game though. I rather liked the system). Soooo....anything Vader or the Emperor did was evil by default unless Luke or Yoda also did it. But if you look at the way the force works, the character is only responsible for his own actions, he tried to stop it, so he's fine. Now if the event happened in a place strong in the Dark Side...maybe he gets a point, but even then, if the Jedi did everything he could to stop it from happening, then I'd say no dark side point. Giving him a dark side point for trying but failing would be adding insult to injury, nor would it make sense given the way the force is supposed to work.Not trying to pick on you, but here is an example from canonical sources. A Jedi comes to a place where slavery exists as a common aspect. The Jedi learns that the slaves are controlled by threat of an internal explosive device. What happens to the Jedi morality when he doesn't fight to free these slaves from their horrible existence. What if, say, he takes extraordinary measures to save one, simply because that one shows extremely high force potential? Just a question.

[Nolgroth]

I do think that certain powers are pretty much "dark side only". Any power that deliberately inflicts pain or tortures someone. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean damage here, I mean using the force specifically to cause pain. i.e. the reverse applications of powers like "Control Another's Pain". I don't see how those cannot be evil by nature.

As far as the avoidance of negative emotions goes. I do think it is possible but it is not done well. Sure, negative emotions happen to everyone, but Jedi are supposed to overcome them, not succumb to them. The problem for most people lies in the fact that the Jedi are supposed to be "empty". This is fine, if you accept the idea of the "empty" or "centered" self from Eastern meditation such as Buddhism, which is probably where Lucas stole it from. The idea is to basically "find your center" where the emotions dissipate and you can look at things objectively. Once that is accomplished, you can reach out to embrace(with positive emotions) the best solution that presents itself. Of course, in the movies they butcher this explanation badly and the West End Games designers reinforced a lot of it.Time to counter again. I have to stand by my belief that the power itself is not evil. Both Vader and Luke use "force choke." The difference is that Vader leaves a trail of bodies (starting with his own wife) and Luke uses it to temporarily disable a couple of guards. Then there is the Jedi mind trick. Does overriding one's free will consitute something dark and evil? In my opinion it does. I think we are back to the intention thing again. When Luke and Obi Wan use the mind trick, it is for the purpose of evasion or rescue. I imagine that Palpatine or Vader would pump more power into it and possibly leave broken minds along the way. The power itself is not evil, just how the practicioner chooses to use it. Force lightning? Yeah, I imagine that it is probably used more often by dark side force users, but just knowing how to use it wouldn't necessarily constitute evil intent. Does it work on circuits? "Hey look, can't you Force Lightning that generator over there? We really need this shield to go down before our friend the rancor catches up."

I wish I had the original trilogy still, but I remember that Yoda made a statement similar to "Once you give in to the Dark Side, forever will it dominate your destiny." (Please correct me if I am in error.) Maybe I am taking that one statement too literally, but that's pretty black and white to me. You get ticked off and strike somebody out of anger, you've just taken your first, proud step toward being the next Sith apprentice. Once you step on the road, it's real hard to step off. Now, there is an argument that the above quote means that "once you do something bad, it is easier to do another bad thing, and so on until you can justify just about anything." I will take that argument as a valid counter to my own.

Oh yeah, I do have a certain amount of hate-mongering towards Lucas for ruining the Star Wars franchise. That is playing a part in my perceptions and argument. Just wanted to make sure that was out in the open.

[Nolgroth]

Its all in the role-playing, but the gaming companies want to codify it more so that it is a rule, and at that point defining the jedi morality and the fall to the dark side fails.Excellent point. I do agree with you on that one.

[Mike W]

Not trying to pick on you, but here is an example from canonical sources. A Jedi comes to a place where slavery exists as a common aspect. The Jedi learns that the slaves are controlled by threat of an internal explosive device. What happens to the Jedi morality when he doesn't fight to free these slaves from their horrible existence. What if, say, he takes extraordinary measures to save one, simply because that one shows extremely high force potential? Just a question.

Okay, if you're referring to Episode I...well, I'd look at it this way. The slaves he encounters, while not free, are not being physically mistreated or endangered - and he isn't in a position to overthrow the social order anyway. So as long as he stops any unjust physical violence he encounters, he is again ok. Again, the idea is that he is only responsible for his own actions(or inaction) and only required to put forth his best effort under the circumstances. He isn't penalized for not being able to do something or for the actions of others. And he has to be able to prioritize, no one can "right every wrong" they come across, not even a Jedi. So he has to do the very best he can given his abilities and responsibilities in any given situation. So protect the princess, save whatever slave(s) you can, don't allow anyone to be mistreated in your presence, and make a vow to come back when you aren't burdened by other, arguably greater responsiblities...I can live with that.

[Mike W]

Time to counter again. I have to stand by my belief that the power itself is not evil. Both Vader and Luke use "force choke." The difference is that Vader leaves a trail of bodies (starting with his own wife) and Luke uses it to temporarily disable a couple of guards. Then there is the Jedi mind trick. Does overriding one's free will consitute something dark and evil? In my opinion it does. I think we are back to the intention thing again. When Luke and Obi Wan use the mind trick, it is for the purpose of evasion or rescue. I imagine that Palpatine or Vader would pump more power into it and possibly leave broken minds along the way. The power itself is not evil, just how the practicioner chooses to use it. Force lightning? Yeah, I imagine that it is probably used more often by dark side force users, but just knowing how to use it wouldn't necessarily constitute evil intent. Does it work on circuits? "Hey look, can't you Force Lightning that generator over there? We really need this shield to go down before our friend the rancor catches up."

I wish I had the original trilogy still, but I remember that Yoda made a statement similar to "Once you give in to the Dark Side, forever will it dominate your destiny." (Please correct me if I am in error.) Maybe I am taking that one statement too literally, but that's pretty black and white to me. You get ticked off and strike somebody out of anger, you've just taken your first, proud step toward being the next Sith apprentice. Once you step on the road, it's real hard to step off. Now, there is an argument that the above quote means that "once you do something bad, it is easier to do another bad thing, and so on until you can justify just about anything." I will take that argument as a valid counter to my own.

Oh yeah, I do have a certain amount of hate-mongering towards Lucas for ruining the Star Wars franchise. That is playing a part in my perceptions and argument. Just wanted to make sure that was out in the open.

I would agree that most powers are "force neutral", and I would agree with all of your examples. But those aren't the powers I was referring to. Aside from the blatantly obvious "Call Upon Dark Side" power, there are essentially reversed versions of most of the healing powers, so instead of "Control Another's Pain" you can have "Cause Pain". Now, deliberately causing pain to someone pretty much has to be evil. This isn't the same as using the force to choke out someone because you're doing less damage to them than if you got into a more direct physical confrontation and were forced to chop them in half with your lightsaber. Same thing with the "Jedi Mind Trick" thing. You're avoiding a confrontation that could cause greater injury, so it's ok. In the case of a "Cause Pain" trick, sure you might be able to avoid a fight with it by forcing someone to drop their gun, but most, if not all, Jedi probably have other powers that could accomplish the same thing without causing such pain.

[Ivan]

Just to play a little devils advocate, but shouldent social norms be taken into account. To use a non SW refrence there was a story were one member of a certain orginzation, after killing his opponent was preparing to eat him. Of course the other members of the group were horrified by this and the perp was mystified as to why. Turns out that the society he was from consuming a defeated enemy was a way to honor that enemy an ensure that at least some small part of him remained. (Extra points to anyone who can name the group and character.) So, if a Jedi comes from a society where killing prisioners was common place(fight or die, we give no quarter) would his not even trying to stop the killing be evil?


As an aside, I was playing the bounty hunter in the above situation, and I agree that the GM was being an hathat.

[BlackSword]

Just to play a little devils advocate, but shouldent social norms be taken into account. To use a non SW refrence there was a story were one member of a certain orginzation, after killing his opponent was preparing to eat him. Of course the other members of the group were horrified by this and the perp was mystified as to why. Turns out that the society he was from consuming a defeated enemy was a way to honor that enemy an ensure that at least some small part of him remained. (Extra points to anyone who can name the group and character.) So, if a Jedi comes from a society where killing prisioners was common place(fight or die, we give no quarter) would his not even trying to stop the killing be evil?


As an aside, I was playing the bounty hunter in the above situation, and I agree that the GM was being an hathat.
In Lucas-land, force sensitive children are kidnapped at a young age so they likely will not know what their social norm is. (even Anakin was considered 'old' to be apprenticed) It does make an interesting point though, to a Jedi from that culture, it is honorable and noble, it is not 'evil' tempting him to consume his opponent. With the force being nuetral, and the dark side only preys on dark emotions, then doing something that you believe is honorable would not drive you towards the dark side. However, a jedi would also have to act in such a way that he can operate in the broader galactic society, so could not do something too much against the cultural norm.

It raises an interesting question for non-Jedi force users. How does the force affect them, and do they have a slide towards the light side or dark side?

[austenandrews]

I would agree that most powers are "force neutral", and I would agree with all of your examples. But those aren't the powers I was referring to. Aside from the blatantly obvious "Call Upon Dark Side" power, there are essentially reversed versions of most of the healing powers, so instead of "Control Another's Pain" you can have "Cause Pain". Now, deliberately causing pain to someone pretty much has to be evil.
I don't know what "Call Upon Dark Side" is, but again I contend that even in the case of causing pain, the use of that power, not the power itself, defines good or evil. If there were some beneficial, non-aggressive reason to cause someone else pain - some medical benefit, say - then using the Force to cause that pain would not constitute a step toward the Dark Side. See the difference? Of course the number of good uses v.s. evil uses will weigh heavily toward evil/aggression for powers like causing pain and Force lightning. But that's largely because there are almost always better ways to accomplish the same goal. The powers themselves simply exist.

[austenandrews]

In Lucas-land, force sensitive children are kidnapped at a young age so they likely will not know what their social norm is.
Another ridiculous fan invention. Qui-Gon said the Jedi would take young children to be trained. The movies never said what happens if the parents don't consent. But I think we can agree that stealing children is not exactly good Jedi behavior.


It raises an interesting question for non-Jedi force users. How does the force affect them, and do they have a slide towards the light side or dark side?
Of course in the films, there were no Force users who weren't either Jedi or Sith. But in any case, temptation toward the Dark Side is a phenomenon that happens to all intelligent beings. Use of the Force, being a source of great power, exacerbates the situation; but does not cause it.

[BlackSword]

Another ridiculous fan invention. Qui-Gon said the Jedi would take young children to be trained. The movies never said what happens if the parents don't consent. But I think we can agree that stealing children is not exactly good Jedi behavior.

Was being a bit hyperbolic and jocular with the kidnapping comment, but it still leaves the question out there about non-Jedi force users. Its 2006, the internet should be able to transmit all sublty. ;)

Of course in the films, there were no Force users who weren't either Jedi or Sith. But in any case, temptation toward the Dark Side is a phenomenon that happens to all intelligent beings. Use of the Force, being a source of great power, exacerbates the situation; but does not cause it.
In the case of the Dark Side being Selfishness and Greed, I agree that all intelligent beings will tempted. In some cases its obvious. Darth Sidious was just an evil bastage seeking to gain ultimate power and dominance in the universe. Anakin/Darth Vader (should I spoiler that;)) was manipulated so that even noble emotions were twisted to produce decidely unnoble means and ends.

But part of the Jedi training seems to imply the controlling emotions in order to avoid temptation. Is this just simply because of their extra power? (part of this is just thinking outloud) If Mundane Blacksword is crossing the street and someone ignores the crosswalk, the most he can do is curse, and maybe call the police. If Darth Blacksword is crossing the street and someone ignores the crosswalk, the car explodes in a fiery special effects laden explosion. Is Mundane Blacksword still a servant of the Dark Side, just impotent in his ability to alter the world to his evil delight. If the Force is truely nuetral, then there is no Dark Side, just simply a person using the force for selfish vs altruistic goals.

I do agree that Force Powers are nuetral, it is dependant on how it is used. I would say the power discussed is 'Control Pain' encompassing both relieving pain and inflicting pain. Even infliction of pain could be 'not Dark Side.' If Jedi Mind tricks are considered 'Light Side Powers' when used to distract someone, then inflict pain could be the same. Causing an itch, or a thumbtack like pain in someone's foot could distract them and allow a way past them besides cutting them down.

[austenandrews]

Was being a bit hyperbolic and jocular with the kidnapping comment, but it still leaves the question out there about non-Jedi force users. Its 2006, the internet should be able to transmit all sublty. ;)
Heh, my apologies then. I've heard that idea argued vehemently in SW fan circles. Sorry to lump you in with those guys.

The only "non-Jedi Force users" in the movies were Anakin in TPM and Leia at the end of ROTJ. Based on those sparse models, we can only guess that non-Jedi Force users don't "use the Force" in remotely the same way that Jedi and Sith do.


But part of the Jedi training seems to imply the controlling emotions in order to avoid temptation. Is this just simply because of their extra power? (part of this is just thinking outloud) If Mundane Blacksword is crossing the street and someone ignores the crosswalk, the most he can do is curse, and maybe call the police. If Darth Blacksword is crossing the street and someone ignores the crosswalk, the car explodes in a fiery special effects laden explosion. Is Mundane Blacksword still a servant of the Dark Side, just impotent in his ability to alter the world to his evil delight. If the Force is truely nuetral, then there is no Dark Side, just simply a person using the force for selfish vs altruistic goals.
Yes, that's exactly how I see it. Though I would say that there is a Dark Side. Just that, as you allude above, it's not some evil entity waiting to pounce on hapless Jedi (except metaphorically). Rather the Dark Side is specifically the use of the Force for evil or selfish ends. Since the Jedi are empathic, emotions like hatred and selfishness are transmitted through the Force. They interrupt its serenity. So there's a real, "measurable" effect of the Dark Side; but it's caused by sentient emotions, rather than existing as an independent thing. At least that's what I take away from the films.

[Dauntless]

This passage is the only problem I have with this post. It excuses inaction in any situation. The past is a source of knowledge. The Jedi value knowledge. You cannot ignore the past and no Jedi would. It is one thing not to dwell on the past but it is totally another to ignore it and allow something which is bad to happen a second time.

To go further, expect the Jedi to disarm the Bounty Hunter as soon as the opposition surrenders from here on out. He'll be totally dispassionate about it and simply explain calmly that it is necessary.


Don't get me wrong here... I understand the desire to base this on intention but that is *not* how Lucas wrote his world. And as someone who has played the Bounty Hunter role before, you just gotta understand it when the Jedi cuts the blaster out of your hand because you have a recognizable behavior pattern. Between the two of you someone is going to change their world-view and if it's the Jedi you can fully expect the Dark Side points to start flying.

Living in the present means exactly that...that you act in the now. If someone is about to cause harm, then you do your best to prevent that harm. If however you failed to prevent that harm, don't beat yourself up over it. In other words, this does not cause inaction, or to allow evil to triumph because good men do nothing. If you fail in your action, then make a correction only as the context allows. In other words, don't "make up" for a failure because you failed, but because an imbalance still exists in the present.

Let me relate a little Buddhist parable to help illustrate:

Two monks are walking across a creek when they see a woman trying to figure out how to cross the stream without getting wet. One of the monks courteously lifted her up and carried her across to the other side, despite having broken one of the vows of not touching a woman. Later after much walking, the two monks finally get to their destination in town when the other monk finally breaks his silence in angry condemnation.

"Brother, why did you break your vow by carrying that woman?"

To which the other monk replied,

"Brother, I stopped carrying her at the other side of the creek...why are you still carrying her?"

In other words, the second monk was dwelling on the past and was in essence committing the greater error. He was not mindful of the now. He was focused on dogmatic consequences rather than the present.

You do not ignore the past, you simply don't dwell on it. Obi-Wan for all intents and purposes was privy to causing the destruction of the Republic by failing in his teaching of Anakin. Did he dwell on that? No, he spent the rest of his life watching over Luke. Did Yoda vow to destroy Palpatine even if it cost him his life to make up for his failure? No, he went into seclusion to keep the Jedi order alive.

So remember Qui Gonn's advice to the padawan Obi-Wan to always be mindful of the present.

[BlackSword]

Yes, that's exactly how I see it. Though I would say that there is a Dark Side. Just that, as you allude above, it's not some evil entity waiting to pounce on hapless Jedi (except metaphorically). Rather the Dark Side is specifically the use of the Force for evil or selfish ends. Since the Jedi are empathic, emotions like hatred and selfishness are transmitted through the Force. They interrupt its serenity. So there's a real, "measurable" effect of the Dark Side; but it's caused by sentient emotions, rather than existing as an independent thing. At least that's what I take away from the films.
How about the physical deformity of the Sith that the role-playing games like to throw in. A common trait of evil in many stories is that it manifests itself physically. It could be theorized that the when a force user takes advantage of negative emotions to fuel his Force powers, it could somehow also manifest itself as twisting his physical form. Or even a subconcious bending of the force, to twist the fleshy mantle as the Dark Side disciple's spirit is twisted. I am familar with the d20 version of SW, and in that game there is a chart for how evil you are = so many points of damage to attributes.

Of the Sith met in the movies:
Darth Maul: Seemed pretty healthy. The tatoos on his face and the horns were cultural, no apparent physical issues due to the darkside.
Count Dookoo: Again, healthy, charming, handsome, great teeth.
Darth Vader: He was obviously injured, but then again his best friend did cut off his legs and arm and leave him in lava to die.
Darth Sidious: Here we have the twisted old man. But he could just be elderly, after all Yoda is injured and he is not a master of the Dark Side.
The movies do not seem to support closeness to the Dark Side twisting the body as well as the soul. So it seems that it is more of a role-playing convention added to the games to further mark the path of the Dark Side.

[austenandrews]

The movies do not seem to support closeness to the Dark Side twisting the body as well as the soul. So it seems that it is more of a role-playing convention added to the games to further mark the path of the Dark Side.
Right, I'd call that a stylistic trope from pulpy films & stories - bad guys are ugly, good guys are dashing. For the longest time the only evil Force users we knew were Vader and the Emperor, so it was easy to assume that the Dark Side makes you ugly. The prequels settled that, though. However I admit, it's interesting to imagine some Sith sect where they twist their bodies grotesquely in order to gain some other benefit. Would make a good source of recurring villains. :)

[Nolgroth]

Okay, if you're referring to Episode I...well, I'd look at it this way. The slaves he encounters, while not free, are not being physically mistreated or endangered - and he isn't in a position to overthrow the social order anyway. So as long as he stops any unjust physical violence he encounters, he is again ok. Again, the idea is that he is only responsible for his own actions(or inaction) and only required to put forth his best effort under the circumstances. He isn't penalized for not being able to do something or for the actions of others. And he has to be able to prioritize, no one can "right every wrong" they come across, not even a Jedi. So he has to do the very best he can given his abilities and responsibilities in any given situation. So protect the princess, save whatever slave(s) you can, don't allow anyone to be mistreated in your presence, and make a vow to come back when you aren't burdened by other, arguably greater responsiblities...I can live with that.I would agree with you, except, that Qui Gonn did not "save whatever slaves he could." Instead, he chose to save the one slave with force potential far beyond anything he had witnessed before and left the mother of that slave still enslaved. He might have not been able to save her. I grant you that. There was some token effort on his part even. I just got the impression that he wanted Anakin seperated from his mother, but still wanted to be able to say "Sorry Anny, but I tried. Wattoo wouldn't have anything to do with it." Again, I am probably reading into it, but we have kind of been led to believe that Jedi were the great defenders of justice in Lucasland, but we find out they are nothing more or less than the Secret Police of the Republic.

Of course, I would agree that a single Jedi or even the whole Jedi order could not right every wrong they came across. Heck, they couldn't even stop the distribution and sale of dangerous narcotic substances in their own hometown.* I am no doubt giving the Jedi a hard knock here, but it illustrates the point from the opening message in the thread. If the Jedi was unable to stop another character from doing evil or even chose the path of detachment, then the GM in question should probably not have penalized the character. If the Jedi actively encouraged or participated in the act, then he should be given the Dark Side point/lose karma whatever.

*Interesting to me that many people would consider Force Lightning evil, but Obi-Wan's casual mental domination of the "death stick" dealer's will and identity was seen as okay. I guess that illustrates the point that the morality as espoused in Lucasland is already flawed to begin with.

[Mike W]

I am no doubt giving the Jedi a hard knock here, but it illustrates the point from the opening message in the thread. If the Jedi was unable to stop another character from doing evil or even chose the path of detachment, then the GM in question should probably not have penalized the character. If the Jedi actively encouraged or participated in the act, then he should be given the Dark Side point/lose karma whatever.

.

I've been agreeing with that much from the beginning.

[Mike W]

I don't know what "Call Upon Dark Side" is, but again I contend that even in the case of causing pain, the use of that power, not the power itself, defines good or evil. If there were some beneficial, non-aggressive reason to cause someone else pain - some medical benefit, say - then using the Force to cause that pain would not constitute a step toward the Dark Side. See the difference? Of course the number of good uses v.s. evil uses will weigh heavily toward evil/aggression for powers like causing pain and Force lightning. But that's largely because there are almost always better ways to accomplish the same goal. The powers themselves simply exist.

Call Up on Dark Side is a force power published in the old West End GAmes and is just what it sounds like - it is a force user asking the dark side for help.

I'm not sure how causing pain could possibly be part of a medical benefit(maybe alerting someone to an injury/disease they didn't know they had, but it seems unilkely to be the most compassionate way to do even that).

[austenandrews]

I'm not sure how causing pain could possibly be part of a medical benefit(maybe alerting someone to an injury/disease they didn't know they had, but it seems unilkely to be the most compassionate way to do even that).
It might depend on how the pain is caused. If it's due to telekinetic manipulation of internal organs, for example, it could have medicinal value. Just like "Force choking" someone who's drowning could prevent their lungs from filling up with water. You get my point.

[Nolgroth]

I've been agreeing with that much from the beginning.Well there, see, I told ya! :)

Just an off the wall question; does gaining Dark Side points in the Star Wars game actually do anything besides make you one step closer to being a bad guy? For instance; is it like Cyerpunk where you lose the character over to NPC status? Does he explode? The curious would like to know.

[Nolgroth]

Call Up on Dark Side is a force power published in the old West End GAmes and is just what it sounds like - it is a force user asking the dark side for help.And what does the Calling the Dark Side do? Just curious. Is it like Force Rage from the LucasArts games (enhanced speed, strength and resistance to damage)?


I'm not sure how causing pain could possibly be part of a medical benefit(maybe alerting someone to an injury/disease they didn't know they had, but it seems unilkely to be the most compassionate way to do even that).Not as a medical thing, but I point back to the previous posts that causing pain may well be a "matter of degree" thing. Just like Luke used choke to distract guards and Vader used it as an incentive scheme, pain could be used to distract a guard by a painful itch or something similar. And, when it comes down to it, is it more evil to cause pain to something in order for it to stop attempting to kill you or to pull out the old blue stick a hack them in half. Now could there be an even more peaceful way to stop the violence? If so, then the Jedi in question would probably want to use an escalation of force policy so he didn't get possessed by the demonic midichlorians (gee that was bad even for me :D).

[Mike W]

It might depend on how the pain is caused. If it's due to telekinetic manipulation of internal organs, for example, it could have medicinal value. Just like "Force choking" someone who's drowning could prevent their lungs from filling up with water. You get my point.

Except in those cases, the pain caused is a side effect, not the primary purpose of the power use.

[Mike W]

Well there, see, I told ya! :)

Just an off the wall question; does gaining Dark Side points in the Star Wars game actually do anything besides make you one step closer to being a bad guy? For instance; is it like Cyerpunk where you lose the character over to NPC status? Does he explode? The curious would like to know.

In West End, dark side points did a few things. First, they made certain force skills like Emptiness either harder to use or less effective. Second, every time you got a dark side point you had to roll 1D6, if you rolled under the number of Dark Side points you had earned, your character was turned and became a GM character unless you could work out a deal to play the character's redemption.

[Mike W]

And what does the Calling the Dark Side do? Just curious. Is it like Force Rage from the LucasArts games (enhanced speed, strength and resistance to damage)?

Not as a medical thing, but I point back to the previous posts that causing pain may well be a "matter of degree" thing. Just like Luke used choke to distract guards and Vader used it as an incentive scheme, pain could be used to distract a guard by a painful itch or something similar. And, when it comes down to it, is it more evil to cause pain to something in order for it to stop attempting to kill you or to pull out the old blue stick a hack them in half. Now could there be an even more peaceful way to stop the violence? If so, then the Jedi in question would probably want to use an escalation of force policy so he didn't get possessed by the demonic midichlorians (gee that was bad even for me :D).

1. Call Upon Dark Side basically asked the dark side for a force point. It was up to the dark side to decide whether it would give it to you, but the implication was that you would always get it...unless you were fated to die at that moment.

2. I would argue in the above examples you provide that while causing them pain might prevent a worse situation, it would be a rare Jedi who could not accomplish the same ends without causing pain(affect their mind, telekinesis to create a distraction, etc).

[Nolgroth]

1. Call Upon Dark Side basically asked the dark side for a force point. It was up to the dark side to decide whether it would give it to you, but the implication was that you would always get it...unless you were fated to die at that moment.Sounds like I would need to read the rules to get the whole jist of what you are describing. I could ask about twenty more questions and really is not the point.


2. I would argue in the above examples you provide that while causing them pain might prevent a worse situation, it would be a rare Jedi who could not accomplish the same ends without causing pain(affect their mind, telekinesis to create a distraction, etc).I will accept this as valid. I am just saying that the mere act of causing pain with the force is secondary to the intent behind causing pain. Interrogation or torture would most assuredly be ungood acts.

What I think is potentially more dangerous is the use of Mind Trick. The subsumation of one's will is a real touchy subject. Even for good, you are basically replacing one's free will with your own. No matter how limited or innocuous seeming, it still deprives the subject of free will. I would rather make somebody feel like they had a blister on their heel, than override their will. Does that make the use of force powers subjective in a moral light?

[Mike W]

Sounds like I would need to read the rules to get the whole jist of what you are describing. I could ask about twenty more questions and really is not the point.

I will accept this as valid. I am just saying that the mere act of causing pain with the force is secondary to the intent behind causing pain. Interrogation or torture would most assuredly be ungood acts.

What I think is potentially more dangerous is the use of Mind Trick. The subsumation of one's will is a real touchy subject. Even for good, you are basically replacing one's free will with your own. No matter how limited or innocuous seeming, it still deprives the subject of free will. I would rather make somebody feel like they had a blister on their heel, than override their will. Does that make the use of force powers subjective in a moral light?

For Call Upon Dark Side, forget the mechanic. The basic idea is that you are asking the dark side for help.

The use of force powers will always be subjective in a moral light, the question is how that morality is defined. Part of our problem is that Lucas never defined it well. Of course, for the movies he didn't really need to. West End tried but failed. I think what you have to do is decide on what basis you will judge the powers and then stick to it, whatever it is. As long as you're consistent, the players will probably adjust if your system makes any sense.

[azato]

The use of force powers will always be subjective in a moral light, the question is how that morality is defined. Part of our problem is that Lucas never defined it well.

I think trying to get a coherent moral system out of Lucas' movies is like trying to get a coherent story out of Lucas' movies.

Episode 3: Obi want pleads with Ani "DONT I'VE GOT THE HIGHER GROUND" showing his concern and love for the boy that he was sent to kill.:weep: Seconds later he cuts Ani down to size (which I'm ok with) but leaves him to burn to death or die from exposure/shock:bmk:. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Mike is right, figure out a system that works for you. To work out a canon out of the movies will produce a schitzoid sytem.

After almost 20 years and TONS of money you would think that Lucas would have had time to write a cohernt story with decent dialoge, develop a solid background and hire good actors. As far as I am concerned the only two expisodes that exist are 4 and 5 - the rest are bad dreams. Forgive me for venting, the Star Wars movie franchise really burns me.:mad: I have been angry since episode 6 (but I did love all the action in episode 2 - but hated everything else).

[Nolgroth]

The use of force powers will always be subjective in a moral light, the question is how that morality is defined. Part of our problem is that Lucas never defined it well. Of course, for the movies he didn't really need to. West End tried but failed. I think what you have to do is decide on what basis you will judge the powers and then stick to it, whatever it is. As long as you're consistent, the players will probably adjust if your system makes any sense.I am in absolute agreement with you on this. I just wanted to carry the argument to its rational conclusion and I think we have done so. You and azato are correct; Lucas did not provide enough of a moral benchmark from which we can judge the use of any Force power in a moral light. Further, he clouds the issue by having some of the characters act in a very inconsistent manner (azato pointed out the Obi-Wan example). I think the whole point was espoused early on in the discussion, when several people suggested that the journey to the Dark Side is a personal experience which should be played out between the GM and player.

Nice debate.

[austenandrews]

nolgroth, how can we carry on a cheesy fanboy argument when you're being so darn reasonable all the time? :p

It's interesting that many consider the Jedi mind trick to be morally objectionable. Remember in the first movie, the Force was almost entirely a matter of mystical perception. Telekinesis wasn't introduced until ESB. The only "offensive" use of the Force was the mind control that Obi-Wan used twice against the stormtroopers and (as it appeared in the isolated context of ANH) that Vader used to choke the Imperial officer. So really, Obi-Wan's trick was by far the more serene and humane use of the Force in that situation.

ESB introduced TK into the mix, making Vader's Force choke a physical rather than mental/neurological effect. That pretty much pulled the rug out from under the "mind trick," turning it into something of much more limited utility. In Hero terms, from ESB forward it never achieved more than EGO+10 effect. Which as I see it, basically counts as a shortcut to giving a persuasive argument. A psychic PRE attack, if you will. Personally I never saw it as some immoral "subversion of free will" any more than a Persuasion roll would be. It's trivial and even respectful compared to "negotiations with a lightsaber."

(The drug dealer scene was a throwaway gag, of course. It can be easily written off that the poor schlub knew he was doing wrong and needed an extra push to overcome his own idiocy. Who really thinks a Jedi will buy death sticks, anyway? He probably got halfway down the block and wondered why the heck he was going through with it.)

[austenandrews]

Except in those cases, the pain caused is a side effect, not the primary purpose of the power use.
You can perhaps more convincingly argue that causing pain is only a side effect of manipulating internal organs. Good guys do it to help people, bad guys do it just to cause pain, but the technique itself is neutral.

[Mike W]

You can perhaps more convincingly argue that causing pain is only a side effect of manipulating internal organs. Good guys do it to help people, bad guys do it just to cause pain, but the technique itself is neutral.

That IS what I argued. The original statement seemed to be that the Jedi was manipulating organs to heal the person. In that case, the pain is a side effect, the same with any other surgery. But causing pain is not the primary purpose of the power use.

[Nolgroth]

nolgroth, how can we carry on a cheesy fanboy argument when you're being so darn reasonable all the time? :pWell, that's me, Mr. Reasonable.


It's interesting that many consider the Jedi mind trick to be morally objectionable.I'm not sure that "many" find it objectionable, but I do.


(The drug dealer scene was a throwaway gag, of course. It can be easily written off that the poor schlub knew he was doing wrong and needed an extra push to overcome his own idiocy. Who really thinks a Jedi will buy death sticks, anyway? He probably got halfway down the block and wondered why the heck he was going through with it.)Gag or not, if we look at in light of the morality discussion, Obi-Wan's intent is what matters. He could have just as easily said no and left it at that. Instead, he casually throws some Mind Control around. It served no real purpose in context of the setting. We all know that the drug dealer most likely didn't stop selling death sticks and we can likely agree that, even if he did, there are hundreds to thousands more like him that continue to do so. It did not further his goal to find the assassin, unless he was testing the death stick dealers will power by using Mind Trick (by assuming the assassin has a stronger will and would be able to resist). All that the Mind Trick accomplished was casually playing with the free will of another sentient.

Jedi seem to use the same powers as Sith, just at a lesser power setting. If the Jedi can routinely do Ego + 10 effects, what could a Sith, or a Jedi inclined to push the ability to the limit, accomplish? Total, if temporary subversion? Long-term reprogramming?

[austenandrews]

That IS what I argued. The original statement seemed to be that the Jedi was manipulating organs to heal the person. In that case, the pain is a side effect, the same with any other surgery. But causing pain is not the primary purpose of the power use.
Ah, my mistake then. I misread you. We seem to be in agreement.

[austenandrews]

Gag or not, if we look at in light of the morality discussion, Obi-Wan's intent is what matters. He could have just as easily said no and left it at that. Instead, he casually throws some Mind Control around. It served no real purpose in context of the setting.
The dealer may have pestered him and drawn unwanted attention. Any other action hero might have clocked the guy, which would have thwarted his free will just as much. Jedi do it without violence. I don't see what's so bad here. He may have even helped the guy a little with his life.


Jedi seem to use the same powers as Sith, just at a lesser power setting. If the Jedi can routinely do Ego + 10 effects, what could a Sith, or a Jedi inclined to push the ability to the limit, accomplish? Total, if temporary subversion? Long-term reprogramming?
That's why I pointed out how the Force's mental influence went from Vader practically killing a guy to Jabba scoffing at an old "Jedi mind trick." The implication is that it's just "a trick," a minor effect, not something with sinister overtones. It seemed to be regarded as a very minor, if occasionally handy use of the Force.

(And in truth, I don't agree that a Sith's abilities are more powerful than a Jedi's. But that's a different geek argument. ;))

[Nolgroth]

The dealer may have pestered him and drawn unwanted attention....He may have even helped the guy a little with his life.Maybe. It looked more to me like the dealer was just trying to make a sale. I also doubt that he helped the guy with his life. His instruction was to rethink his life. Without knowing much about the dealer, we can assume either way; he liked his life or he didn't. Heck, he may have reformed. He may also have rethought his decision to stay on Coruscant instead of moving to Nar Shadaa. :)


(And in truth, I don't agree that a Sith's abilities are more powerful than a Jedi's. But that's a different geek argument. ;))Oh I don't necessarily believe that a Sith's abilities are more powerful, rather the Sith have much less of a qualm at pumping power into the abilities to achieve a greater effect.

[Badger]

I have always thought of it as the Jedi and Sith werent necessarily weaker or stronger. But (at least with the way Lucas did it) the Sith seems to use his "repertoire" of powers more efficiently (or has less ethical restrictions on it). Though I always felt this is a limit we can think on the inability to tell a story properly by Lucas than anything else.

For me I kind of took 1-3 doesnt exist attitiude. Well ROTJ doesnt exist past the scene BEFORE the first appearance of Wicket. :thumbup:


Course, I am not sure we can attribute it to bad acting, so much as it is probably pretty hard adjusting to having been surrounded by a green screen (or blue or whatever they use for that CGI stuff):D

[Mike W]

I don't think it is so much that the Jedi are "weaker" in the sense that they can do less with the force. I just think they are not as combat oriented as the Sith are. The Sith are all about kicking butt and causing pain and destruction. The Jedi are about peace, so they probably have a wider variety of powers and spend less time working on combat stuff, so individually they generally aren't as good in combat.

[Nolgroth]

I don't think it is so much that the Jedi are "weaker" in the sense that they can do less with the force. I just think they are not as combat oriented as the Sith are. The Sith are all about kicking butt and causing pain and destruction. The Jedi are about peace, so they probably have a wider variety of powers and spend less time working on combat stuff, so individually they generally aren't as good in combat.For being so "peaceful," the Jedi sure tend to leave trails of bodies in their wake. :)

[Curufea]

But they are only CGI bodies, with little to no blood - so it doesn't count.

[austenandrews]

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that knights with laser swords are "peaceful." It looks to me like the Jedi were never hesitant to take care of business. They're serene and don't start fights, but they certainly charge into situations where the fight will inevitably come to them. Among other things, they're professional warriors.

[Vondy]

Dark Side points shouldn't exist in the first place. The turning to the darkside is supposed to be a dramatic and personal event - something that plays out in story form and not dry mechanics. Further, its not just the dark side that was squishier in the movies/books. It was also the Code of the Jedi, which is really a philosophy. And when one has become a master of a philosophy, then one has made his philosophy and made it his own. I think the Jedi Code, as written, is almost unplayable. I also think we run into problems when we talk about "evil acts" - is the act in of itself evil, or is it the circumstances, motives and method that are the key to whether an otherwise non-moral act is rendered moral or immoral. For instance, there is a time to kill and a time to stay your hand. Most would agree taking the life of a pursuer with muderous intent is not evil. Indeed, some would argue its obligatory. And the sex act, is it good or bad? Most would say it depends on who you do it with (defining the who and who not based on their cultural assumptions). I don't live in a black and white world and can't relate to black and white game mechanics. If the path to the dark side is marked with sign posts its not very interesting. Also, I concur, the GM was wrong. Two reasons: he treated it as a mechanic instead of a story element AND his interpretation is deeply subjective and not something the player would have guessed on his own.

[Vondy]

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that knights with laser swords are "peaceful." It looks to me like the Jedi were never hesitant to take care of business. They're serene and don't start fights, but they certainly charge into situations where the fight will inevitably come to them. Among other things, they're professional warriors.

Cosmic Samurai: I'll chop your head off without a ripple in my wa (1) for I have done it in the manner of junsui keiken (2) having obtained a state of pure mu (3). One must not act from zettai mujunteki jiko dojitsu (4) for that leads to the side of Ankoku (5).

(1) harmony, (2) pure experience, (3) trancendtal nothingness, (4) conflicted identiry, (5) darkness.