The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Star Wars D6 2nd Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Updated
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools -> Star Wars D6 2nd Edition: Revised, Expanded, and Updated Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That'd be very cool- I enjoy those two modules, and having the rules consistency would be very nice.
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4833

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sincerely hope the REUP becomes part of the regular lexicon. Smile
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 188

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
I sincerely hope the REUP becomes part of the regular lexicon. Smile

we hope so too. I am not sure exactly what our plan of action is after we are done the rulebooks. We have considered a lot of options from new era baded sourcebooks to reprinting ebooks of old WEG stuff, to a few other notions. It will depend largely on how the community recieves the book.

We are not sure if there is even a demand for ebook reprints. But that is in the future. I think that is why Lane wants to publish Tatooine Manhunt, just to see if people care about WEG material being re-typeset and cleaned up for epub.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 188

PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still here. I have been vigerously working on the final copy of the core rulebook. As of this evening i have finished chapter 10 on the force. That leaces the Adventure swction and the galaxy section... All written but in need of some thorough editing. Hopefully in another month or so it will be dine. We plan to releaae this first revision and let it "soak" for several months to collect errata. During this time we plan to begin the sourcebook.

No major changes, however we are changing the intro adventur to the fall of edan ii. It is a far more comprehensive introduction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. Surprised all to heck i didn't see let alone post in this thread prior to now..

Before i tackle the PDF (or what ever form the new rules are in), i will hit the 5+ pages of comments, which should cover most of what is there (hopefully)..
First i will hit aegisflashfire's comments. Then i will work onto other peoples.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Ranged weapons..
Reason for the change: long guns are aimed and fired radically differently than pistols. Butt against the shoulder, aim down the sight, arm positions are different---but firing a blaster pistol is not different than firing a Glock. Yes, one is kinetic and one is a beam, but over the course of typical handgun ranges its not hugely significant. The nice thing about this split is it gives you something to do with weapons that have extendable stocks (like the Blastech E-11/Stormtrooper One) They can be used as either a pistol or a rifle and thus use an alternate skill.
Similarly, also this provides an easy demarcation line between heavy weapons and blasters, without having to rely on the weapon description itself.

Another nice thing about this breakout, is that when a new weapon is encountered you don't have to make a hard judgement call about what class it is. Charric? Machine Gun? Colt Revolver? The age of the weapon isn't the factor, its all in how its held and fired. Crossbows & Bowcasters fit nicely together but can also encompass grappling Hook throwers, wrist crossbows, etc.


I like the above (i snipped out the actual skill breakdown) but could see a 2nd category for long arms/heavy weapons. One for single shooters (such as most blaster rifles, as by the weapons books they usually have a ROF of 1) and one for repeating weapons, such as a SAW, M-16, light repeater etc. Firing a single shot long arm is definitely different than firing a fully automatic weapon. But i do like the other categories (especially separating bows and crossbows like that).
Question though. Are you saying that grenade/thrown weapons and missile weapons are ok being split as is by the RAW?

aegisflashfire wrote:
This Next change is somewhat controversial, but let me try to make the point, and I'm saying this as someone with 15 years of martial arts training:

..snip..
Lastly, this makes a skill investment in melee or brawling overall more valuable and encourages a diversification of skills. Ranged combat is overall far more common in Star Wars, so investing in two skills there is pretty much a must for nearly all characters.


IMO one of the biggest reasons they went that route was so you would need to spend more CP to up both attack and defense skills to slow down people from being 'combat gods' in melee/hand to hand'.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Archaic Starship Piloting - consider eliminating this skill. In 20 years of playing & GM'ing star wars, I've never seen someone make a roll with this skill. I can't even think of a single character I've seen who has the skill. Its not hurting anything here, but its kinda just a void skill


Agreed. Though in 3 of the Sparks starwars modules we have, there are archaic ships found that once repaired can be used by PCs. BUT 3 out of 200+ is imo not enough of a justification for keeping the skill, i mention it just to show it can be put INTO modules, to give reasoning for why it was there.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Communications - Move to Technical. Mechanical skills are about translating computer/console/reigns input into some other motion or action. (aiming a turret, turning a ship, etc) Its about the user's ability to perceive in 4 dimensions, judge position, etc. Communications just doesn't seem to do that for me, other than its a ship system. It logically makes more sense as a technical skill (reading computer input/output, adjusting frequencies)


Since my Navy job was all about both the operation of communications, as well as the repair of communication gear, i actually disagree with your assessment. Manipulating/operating gear is imo more into the mechanical side of house than technical, but i can also see an argument for moving it to Knowledge instead of mech (or tech). Now if you had a separate comm repair skill, that definitely goes in Tech.

aegisflashfire wrote:
OK, and this is where I get controversial.

Capital Ship Piloting/Space Transports/Starfighter Operation


Overall i agree there should be less piloting skills, but separating them into combat and non combat (as you suggest) imo can make it easy for someone to overload on one (or the other) especially since combat is a BIG part of SW. Now if you made it where you need the base space ship ops before you can get the combat ops, and you need to keep them with in 2d of one another, that i could agree with.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Second:
Vehicle Gunnery, Walker Gunnery, Repulsorlift Gunnery, Speeder Gunnery, Starfighter Gunnery, Capital Ship Gunnery Eliminate: Replace with
Laser Gunnery, Missile Gunnery, Artillery Gunnery, Turret Gunnery


Like with the hand held weaponry, i love this suggestion. Though as a Q, what would grav well generators and tractor beams count as?

aegisflashfire wrote:
Perception:
Add Awareness skill

Rationale: One big hole in WEG's perception skill use is that Sneak is only opposed with Perception. Since perception is capped at your attribute limit, anyone with even a little bit of sneak will always be rolling more dice than someone attempting to notice them


Re-read the rules. SNEAK is opposed by Search (or perception if you lack the skill) Check out page 96 in the revised book under ambushes. Also check out page 57 for the ruling in both the sneak and search skill write ups.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Technical

oooh boy. Again, WEG really dropped the ball on this section because they tossed common sense out the window.

Throw out the following skills:
..snip..
Replace with:


Again i like your logic here and agree.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Hyperdrive Startup Time
I like this rule and hadn't seen it suggested before, but again I draw issue with "Space Transport" as a division of craft. Why does the Black Ice (a huge fuel container ship, a dozen KM's hyperdrive start up at the same rate as the Falcon? I also don't like that it throws another table lookup required.

What if it is just Hyperdrive Multiplier x Hull Code (modified by scale)-4 or some similar formula?


I have yet to read the actual start up time rule, but i see it based on the complexity of the ship/Engine more than the size. An old battle ship and a newer nuke battle ship have the same size (almost) but the complexity in starting up the nuke one over the steam engine one is a lot more difficult.

aegisflashfire wrote:
Free Actions Maybe I've missed it over the years, but I've never seen a clear statement of when a 'free action' occurs. Is it simultaneous with another action taken? (as I've always ruled) or is it an action that still takes an action, but requires no roll?


Page 80 in the R&E rule book imo did a great job of describing what is and is not a free action vice a NON -roll free action but still counted for MAP action (setting weapon to stun, drawing weapon etc).

aegisflashfire wrote:
Ionization Damage
There are no rules for clearing ion damage other than to let it dissipate. This is an oversight on WEG's part that should probably be rectified. Maybe something else for the Shield person to do?


That was imo more a decision by the designers to make Ion damage more worthy in combat, much like with using Stun damage its easier to take down high STR targets. I have my own HR for 'bleeding off ion' damage, in which after your engineer gets into engineering, he can (after the 2 round min time for making repair rolls) attempt a bleed off roll, and if successful halves the remaining time for how long a system is affected by ion damage. BUT that is also linked to my HR for ion damage.

[quote=”aegisflashfire”]Dark Side Points for force powers its pretty clear that jedi can kill using the force without darkside points. Yoda hurls his saber at one clone, throughout EU people are force pushed off ledges, etc. I think we have to take into account the mindset of the character. Certain powers may be inherently evil (Force Lightning, Injure/Kill) though Electric Judgement is pretty much the same as force lightning and NOT evil. State of mind of the force user has to be addressed.

I think you're going to have to address Sith vs Dark Jedi, Grey Jedi, Living Force vs Unifying Force, Baran Do, Tyia, Aii Ting Monks, Flowwalking, & Shatterpoints in force powers. Good that you included some things, but I think some of the force powers need to be cast off in favor of some of the more important powers. [/quote]

We have had thread after thread on this subject. There are those (like me) who feel the novels and cartoons got it wrong, by opening up the force to being used to kill without gaining a DSP just cause someone had 'pure thoughts' in their heart at the time they used the power, while others are like you in thinking Vergree was right in that there is no dark side, just the darkness in the heart of the user.

Perhaps BOTH sides can be addressed, so both sort of Dms can see rules they wish to use.

[quote=”Aegisflashfire”]But light saber already is a combined attack/defense skill (and gets augmented by light saber combat and combat sense. Most combat occurs at blaster ranges anyway. Let me think on it. I agree there's a trade off there. [/quote]

Which to me was a major mistake on the designers part. Why should the LS get singled out by not only having only one skill for both attack and defense, BUT also have a force power that can augment it to where a decent 5-6d skill level in both the force side and the skill side can make any jedi into almost a KILL ALL machine.

I will continue this later!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 188

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a lot of good notes provided on this thread. The 2nd ed Revised, Expanded, and Updated will not contain skill description changes, combat changes or other "signifigant" alterations.

It is not because we dont't agree with the logic or design philosophy behind them, quite the opposite, I personally like them a lot. The chief concern is that it will deviate too far from the RAW most commonly used by the community, and most often appearing in official and fan sourcebooks. The chief aim of REUP is to converd 2r&e into an ebook while taking into account the updates in both thw cannon and legends expanded universe. Therefore, making skill and major rule changes would render much material obsolete at worsrmt and at best would require a conversion. Our community feedback indicates that folks would be less likely to use REUP, seeing it as a collection if "house rules". Big RPGs backed by publishers have a tough enough time "selling" a new ed to players invested in an older ed.

That being stated i personally have been kicking around the idea of "life after REUP" and making another ruleset taking into account some of the more signifigant concepts discussed above. It would use 1sr ed and Introductory Adventure Game as a foundation, building on some if the improvementa in REUP. This would free me up to tweak the rules more signifigantly. However the time commitment is vast, and with major rule changes comes playtesting. My game group is not willing to leave 2nded. REUP, largely due to the investment they have made in charactera, and familiarity with the system.
So i have no playtesters, no individuals willing to coauthor, and frankly while i have an urge to do it, there are more pressing future publications i (and the REUP team) would like to do.

But, if there is any one out there who wants to hack away at it, our resources (our text/tables and opinions) are available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
We have had thread after thread on this subject. There are those (like me) who feel the novels and cartoons got it wrong, by opening up the force to being used to kill without gaining a DSP just cause someone had 'pure thoughts' in their heart at the time they used the power, while others are like you in thinking Vergree was right in that there is no dark side, just the darkness in the heart of the user.


*Sigh*

If we're gonna have that debate, I have to say- I really think that Vergere's originally-stated position was both right, and consistently muddled. Truthfully, I think it's the most logical Froce-philosophy... and was recognized as such (and thus, such a threat to Star Wars orthodoxy as laid out in ESB) that that's why it was completely Straw Man-assassinated with the whole Jacen/Sith nonsense.

To me, it makes a lot more sense that the Force, as a mystical energy field, is not divided up into arbitrary halves of good and evil; that doesn't even jibe with being an energy field created by all living things. Do they each give off 50% light and 50% darkness to fuel both sides? It's just a metaphysical nonsense.

Rather, the idea as it was intended (or at least as I understood it) was that there is one Force, one energy field, and the light/darkness are imbued it in usage by the user. Like light being shone in a prism coming out the other side in a different form. This doesn't mean that everything was not light or dark, good or evil- merely that the good and evil weren't inbuilt to the Force ('The dark side made me do it'), but personally accountable to the user ('I used the inherently-neutral force to commit an evil act'). In much the same way that a knife isn't inherently good or evil- but whatever you do with it (cutting your dinner, stabbing a person) still is.

The straw man in the novels was saying that because there is no codified good and evil build into the Force, there is no good and evil PERIOD- which really just makes Jacen an ignoramus of a student, since that's the least-logical conclusion ever drawn. It's like he leaps from one non-personal-accountability extreme to the other without comprehending the 'No, the good and evil come from you, which are still absolute standards, but supplied by your own choices and not the nature of the Force' stance in the middle... which, again, to me, is the only logical stance.

So, going back to the original quote, the idea that 'opening up the force to being used to kill without gaining a DSP just cause someone had 'pure thoughts' in their heart at the time they used the power' is not necessarily synonymous with Vergere's position.

I think that you could instead make the case that the force can be used to kill without a DSP (as in the Yoda example from ROTS cited) when it is in self-defense or combat... which is something that it seems like the films, the traditional force-understanding, and the vergere-philosophy all agree on; in situations where killing is morally-defensible (at least, in modern vernacular; where one's own life is at stake and it is seen as a defensive action), there is nothing inherently dark side in it to begin with. Whereas using the Force to murder or kill in a non-defensive manner is equally evil to the film/traditional view, and the vergere-view; the only difference being that it draws on an inherently-evil source to commit an absolutely-evil action, clear-conscience-regardless, in the former, and draws on an inherently-neutral source to commit an absolutely-evil action, clear-conscience-regardless, in the latter.

Electric Judgement nonwithstanding (I think video game mechanics always have to be taken with a grain of salt), I can't think of anywhere in canon where a character's actions are judged by his state of mind and not his actual actions- not in the Vergere view, and not in the traditional view. I would be in favor of revising DSP rules (if they're not already this way, which is certainly how I'd treat them) to factor in self-defense vs. aggression (if you use the Force to defeat and kill a Sith in lightsaber combat, or to outdraw and shoot a bandit who is drawing on you, no DSP because the *action* was not dark)... but I don't see anything to support revising them based on mindset (heck, a psychopath could commit unspeakable evil with a clear conscience, I'm sure- its about what's done, not what's felt).

The Yoda-ists and Vergere-ists actually agree on the mindset-doesn't-clear-you-of-doing-evil principle completely, I think... at least, those that adhere to what Vergere actually said, and not the moronic way that Jacen (by mandate of author character-assassination) interpreted it. So if you want a poster-child for how some philosophies got it way wrong, please... use him, not Vergere. Wink
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 188

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my campaigns, Good and evil are not relative positions. There are absolutes, man's inherent longing for power, control over his own destiny, and denile of authority create the temptation to manipulate the force to do evil. It is not the jedi's actions as much as his intentions.
The force is essentially neutral, but it can embody good and evil. Perhaps it was the creation of a higher metaphysical being, useful for communication and connection with the physical. At some point the physical beings learned to govern the Force for their own evil ends. Perhapse this was inevitible due to the inherent tendency of creatures toward dominence, or some other reason. The drawback was that when the force was used selfishly or with malice, it caused a psychological and physical backlash, consuming the user.
In order to maintain a connection with the force, moral laws (like the jedi code) were established to point toward the reason the force was created, for a moral good, a connection and bond with the metaphysical creator (or nature). The jedi code is not the abosulte law, but a shadowy mirror of what governs nature in its perfect harmonious state.

Therefore there is no balance as the jedi claim, there is a war between good and evil though. The force is merely the medium, not the object. The object is the law. If the law is transgressed, bad things are inevitible, the dark side will consume a user in time. Not because it is an entity, but rather it is opposed to the natural state, and man exists in the natural state. So if exposed to darkness, man will wither.

Ironucally jedi can never live completely under law. It is impossible because man (aliens) is predusposed to crave lawlessness (or rather is own law, serving himself). This is evident in the failure if the jedi order.

So thata how i frame it. A but puritanical and abstract, part of playing a jedi in my campaigns is a constant discovery of the nature of beings and the force. Of course all my campaigns are post episode iii.

Ok so i am way off topic sorry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

klhaviation wrote:
Therefore there is no balance as the jedi claim, there is a war between good and evil though. The force is merely the medium, not the object. The object is the law. If the law is transgressed, bad things are inevitible, the dark side will consume a user in time. Not because it is an entity, but rather it is opposed to the natural state, and man exists in the natural state. So if exposed to darkness, man will wither.


Nicely said!
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarm R'keeg wrote:


If we're gonna have that debate, I have to say- I really think that Vergere's originally-stated position was both right, and consistently muddled. Truthfully, I think it's the most logical Froce-philosophy... and was recognized as such (and thus, such a threat to Star Wars orthodoxy as laid out in ESB) that that's why it was completely Straw Man-assassinated with the whole Jacen/Sith nonsense.

To me, it makes a lot more sense that the Force, as a mystical energy field, is not divided up into arbitrary halves of good and evil; that doesn't even jibe with being an energy field created by all living things. Do they each give off 50% light and 50% darkness to fuel both sides? It's just a metaphysical nonsense.


And you are ok to have your viewpoint that way. But to me there is more in tune in the novelizations of the films and such to show there IS a dark side and light side. We have nexuses of power for either side (and iirc both in the shard of the minds eye), such as the dark cave on Dagobah. Now if there wasn't a set dark side of the force, how is it those places linger after the "intent" to use the dark side, has been long gone?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
But to me there is more in tune in the novelizations of the films and such to show there IS a dark side and light side.


I would say that Yoda definitely thinks there is. It's an old truism that we assume everyone in a sci-fi is telling the truth, because everything we learn about that wholly-unknown universe comes from people and therefore each new fact is filed away as further data about the universe; considering the truth of it isn't in the mindset because of how we're used to exposition working.

However, obviously if Vergere is right, Yoda is wrong... which is what I tend to think. After all, he was wrong often enough in the PT. For instance...


garhkal wrote:
We have nexuses of power for either side (and iirc both in the shard of the minds eye), such as the dark cave on Dagobah. Now if there wasn't a set dark side of the force, how is it those places linger after the "intent" to use the dark side, has been long gone?


Yoda *says* that this cave is strong in the Dark Side, as befits his philosophy... but do we really see that? Firstly, he says that what is in there is 'only what you take in with you'- that sounds a lot more like Vergere's ideas. Secondly, the cave, in all its sinister evil... shows Luke a vision that helps him to realize a truth about himself and grow as a person. That doesn't seem particularly evil. A place that's strong in the Force, reflecting the actions of the user and serving to reveal a truth about them? A place saturated in evil that neither deceives nor attacks (you could argue that the illusion might've killed Luke, I suppose, but it was a pretty incompetent fighter if that was the goal) and in fact actually HELPS the aspiring Jedi? That's pretty inept evil, if evil's what it is.


That said, in terms of lingering effects: the notion is not that the Force is not used lightly or darkly, that there are not light or dark acts. Rather that the Force is the Force, and becomes the 'Dark Side' in the moment its used for evil, or the 'Light Side' in the moment its used for good. (to use a really clumsy metaphor). It's like the prism analogy (or more accurately, colored filters). The Force is like a beam of light shone at a wall, with a filter (the user) in the center. By the time the light hits the wall (aka the Force manifests in an action), it is red, or blue, whichever filter you held up- that's what makes it through to the physical manifestation. It just came from the same white beam up until it ran through one filter or the other.

Thus, say, a massacre of Tuskens using the Force can absolutely leave a dark taint- only 'The Force' was used... but its every usage was evil; powerful 'dark' manifestations of it. And that darkness- infused or bonded to the neutral 'Force' by the transgressions of the user (their 'violation of the law')- can absolutely linger, become a nexus, and serve as its own filter, tainting whatever Force is drawn from its neutral metaphysical place and into the world through it.

I feel as thought he terminology being used is not quite sufficient to the concepts being discussed, however, so none of that may be clear. To sum up: if Dark or Light nexuses exist (a point I do not concede as I am unconvinced from the evidence as presented), they can nonetheless still exist within this philosophy, because although there is only one neutral Force being drawn from, it never manifests itself in the physical world through action without becoming either light or dark, filtered through the the user to become so.



That's my position, anyway. Though my point was not to ignite that debate, because I know that it will not reach a conclusion... I was only trying to explain the Vergere POV better (educationally, rather than provocationally) in order to suggest that the third 'grey area' POV that is neither of our philosophies should not be described by association with her philosophy, but rather as a separate, distinct third entry that both our POVs oppose.
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So like i said, when writing the REUP version, have both "View points" hit. One which is as per Yoda and the OT, where there IS a dark and light side, and one which is more in line with Vergree's POV in that there is no such division, its all in who uses it and what's in their heart.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
klhaviation
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 19 Aug 2014
Posts: 188

PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well in REUP it is the duelist viewpoint, rather than the pluralist viewpoint. That is simply because based on what is now considered "cannon", the duelist seems to emerge as the most accepted view by the galactic experience. That is not to say the pluralist "gray Jedi" viewpoint is non existent or relevant, it has its place. However the goal of REUP is to be a core rulebook, that being said we opted to use the most "commonly accepted" view of the force. I think the debate of the metaphysical properties and laws of the Force are best left to supplemental material, not to be defined by the core rules.

The Force chapter has already received its final layout and art placement, it actually is pretty close to the original Force layout, with the exception of added information on Pre-original trilogy and Old Republic Jedi. In fact the only force tradition covered in detail are the Jedi (although the Tyia, sith, Witches of Dathomir, and i believe the Jannesari are mentioned.

We may add some force traditions in a later chapter in the Galaxy section covering military groups (Rebel SpecForce, Death watch etc...), force traditions, and other groups (the Hapans, Tapani etc...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fare enough. For when the 'force sourcebook' for this comes out, perhaps there it can be expanded.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarm R'keeg
Commander
Commander


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 481
Location: PA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
So like i said, when writing the REUP version, have both "View points" hit. One which is as per Yoda and the OT, where there IS a dark and light side, and one which is more in line with Vergree's POV in that there is no such division, its all in who uses it and what's in their heart.


Not the heart- again, that's a third POV. Rather, the alignment with absolute moral law, just as in the Yoda view- merely that morality entering play via the user rather than via a branch of the Force.

We used streams as a metaphor, right? So think of it this way: think of good and evil (as absolute standards) like a dye being added to those streams. In the Yoda view, the dye is being added to the stream at the source, upstream, so by the time it reaches where you're standing in the stream, using it, its already been dyed. In the Vergere view, you are standing there with packets of dye- meaning that upstream, there is no color, and downstream from you, it is dyed. It is the same dye, and the result (clearly evil or good actions based on moral law) are occurring- the difference is at what point the dye gets added. The idea that- I dunno, it kinda breaks the metaphor... that it is based on what is in someone's heart instead of their adherence to absolute morality is foreign to both concepts (though the emotion-basis is closer to the Yoda view, ironically). It is a third, separate concept as rejected by Vergere as it would be by Yoda, since it relies on a subjective attitude determining morality rather than an objective standard of right and wrong, which is still the basis for both Yoda and Vergere.

Not trying to be pedantic, just really trying to clarify and keep my pet philsophy from being lumped into the 'whatever's in your heart' camp. Wink
_________________
Star Wars: Marvels, the audio drama: www.nolinecinemas.com

Hard core OT, all the way!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0