• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EliasWindrider

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
  1. What's wrong with the warden spec in "keeping the peace" (a.k.a. the Guardian book)?
  2. Hello people, can we please avoid categorizing what other people are saying in a derogatory way. From a logical argument point of view, I find Stan and daeglan more convincing but maybe they could be a tad less disparaging in their "tone" please??? We've got one of the best most welcoming most civil online communities I've ever seen but maybe we could all work a little harder about keeping it great or even making it even better/more friendly?
  3. I think the alliance is interested in appearing to be ivory tower, morally superior to the empire, above reproach, saw jeopardized that image. If they really were ivory tower the would have taken action to stop him instead of just parting ways... that's the point I was making
  4. Stupid auto-miscorrect changed "playtester" into "plates term"
  5. I thought that you were a plates term Absol, or did I misread your earlier posts?
  6. I think you cut off the quote in mid sentence because I already addressed this and wouldn't have been able to abject to my word choice otherwise...
  7. I'd argue that it's OK to kill anyone on the battlefield in the other side's uniform if they are holding a rifle or other weapon. And the definition of a battlefield is anywhere fighting happens, so if the rebels launch an attack on a legitimate military target, well it just became a battlefield. By the way just because it's ethical doesn't mean it's moral and I'd be handing out a little conflict if the rebel Jedi PCs bombed anything and killed stormtroopers as collateral damage. But in this case the PCs didn't bomb anything. Saw's tactics were too extreme for the ivory tower "rebel alliance" (I actually think they disavowed him because he was a public relations nightmare, a little too sloppy/accepting of collateral damage) but he wasn't so extreme as to be a "terrorist" (he wasn't bad enough that the rebel alliance decided they had to use force to put a stop to him)
  8. If the pcs were the ones who bombed the munitions factory, I'd be handing out conflict, but that conflict would be the same whether it was stormtroopers or indoctrinated teenagers got blown up as collateral damage. So I'm not saying ditch the morality system. I'm saying that even if the pcs knew in advance that the munitions factory was going to get bombed they shouldn't be getting conflict for different rebels attacks on a legitimate military target because the responsibility lies elsewhere (they didn't even order the attacks).
  9. If the kid is a a legitimate military target because his parents told him too, they accepted the risks on his behalf... and if they didn't consider the risk, well not everyone has good parents and they've got some of their child's blood on their hands. The people who carried out the attack aren't innocent but their culpability is about the same as if storm troopers were the ones that got blown up. From an operational perspective, delaying the destruction of a munitions factory also costs lives... the people who the manufactured/shipped weapons get used on, so delaying even a day could cost thousands to tens of thousands rebel soldiers their lives, to save the lives of O (10-20) indoctrinated teenagers (who are highly likely to enlist in the imperial military and be shooting at other rebels in a few years anyway). Yes the math of war sucks, war sucks as a whole, but if you're at war, meaning you've accepted the premise that this war is necessary, you heed the math or suffer the consequences. The rebellion is out manned and out gunned. Their only advantage is that they are highly mobile/have very few fixed targets that they need to protect while the empire has to protect all of their infrastructure/the imperial war machine. I.e. the rebels can employ guerrilla tactics, going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties when atracking legitimate military targets is infeasible from a practical/mathematical stand points. As long as they don't deliberately target civilians (i.e. they only attack legitimate military targets) then they have met the requirements of a "moral war" (yeah I know it's an oxymoron, I honestly don't think a moral war has been even theoretically possible since the invention of firearms). Personally I have nothing to do with war in my job (other than working to prevent it) I'm a computational scientist who puts error bars on the numbers coming out os simulations relating to using satellites to detect things that go boom for the purpose of nuclear test ban treaty monitoring, so not all civilian contractors on a military vase have as much to do with war as a "real soldier." But I accept the risk of becoming a legitimate military target when I go to work at a national laboratory that happens to be located on a military base. Granted I live in the continental united states so the risk is very small (for now). Once a year there is bring your daughters and sons to work day and once every 5 years is family day, my son is 2 days shy of 2 months old so it hasn't come up, but I know the risk of letting my son/wife see where I work. And I know it's impossible to avoid all risk, you live in California you accept the risk of earthquakes, if you live on the Gulf Coast or east coast you accept the risk of hurricanes...
  10. There's a difference between targeting a fixed legitimate target that civilians are visiting and targeting civilians. Unless it's secret base with a cover/front function, the civilians know they are visiting a legitimate military target... it's the same idea as the social contract involved with rolling a dice pool with challenge dice in it... you've accepted the risk of despair before you rolled. Every morning Monday through Friday I drive onot a military base to my job at a national lab. I know it's a target and that I become part of the target when I go to work. When I go home in the evening I expect to not be part of a legitimate military target. If the base got bombed I'd be a casualty of war, if I got bombed at the mall, grocery store, or church I'd be the victim of a terror attack. Those have very different moral implications. The scenario at hand was that "Hitler youth" teenagers were visiting a munitions/weapons factory... they knew they were visiting a munitions factory, a.k.a. a legitimate military target, when they went there. I've personally got no problems (apart from any loss of life is a tragedy) with civilians visiting a weapons factory being collateral damage. The alternative is to invite/encourage the enemy to use hostages as human shields. There's no reason to use a human shield if they won't provide any protection. If a hostage dies in a bank robbery or terrorist attack, their blood is on the hands of the bank robbers/terrorist, not the swat team that failed to save them.
  11. It's a legitimate target, the youths aren't the target, they're just collateral damage, and other than being old enough and not too senile to know the difference between right and wrong there isn't an age limit on evil. If these "Hitler youth" kids are teenagers, I honestly wouldn't give any conflict for not preventing the strike on the legitimate target that accidentally kills them. When you visit or dwell at a legitimate military target you become a legitimate military target. Civilians work on military bases, I'm one of them (I work at a national lab on a military base), if said base gets attacked and some civilians die, yes it's a tragedy (all loss of life is), and it's an act of war.... but it's not an act of terror.... though shalt not murder is a commandments (if you follow that belief system) killing in war isn't necessarily murder. Me I don't doubt that I could kill someone if I had to (say to protect my wife or child) I do doubt my ability to live with myself afterwards though if I was a soldier and killed during war. Drone strikes are incredibly effective but i don't believe that the collateral damage is justified... the difference is that the legitimate military target moves into the vicinity of unaware innocent civilians, they didn't go to the legitimate military target. In my opinion snipers (a "surgical strike" option) are about the maximum amount of force justifiable for attacking mobile legitimate military targets (i.e. people/terrorists) in a densely populated urban environment. Back to the thread topic, if the "Hitler youth" are visiting a military base or similar legitimate fixed location no conflict, it's kind of like the social contract when you roll a pool of narrative dice, you saw the difficulty pool before you rolled, but if the target is a person visiting the Hitler youth ato their scool academy.... then maybe conflict is in order.... Just my 2 decí creds.
  12. I checked the link address before opening it... ffg would not post announcements on YouTube so you didn't get me... nice try though.
  13. I thought it was "fool" not "please" at least that's how I'vealways heard it
  14. It doesn't have to be that specialized. any species with claws or another natural weapon (like the tusks on a whipid) would work just as well. The green nikto is just 5 or 10 xp cheaper than others due to the free rank in coordination. And it would still work, though not as well with a critical rating of 3 so, it could be any species martial artist or a natural weapon species that took warden and performer. The build I posted was just the cheapest way to best pull it off, and your talking something in the neighborhood of 200-300 xp which really isn't all that much. If you start knight level, you're at least half way there if you take the optimum route. But I do agree that if your gm decides to spam concussive on you, then you've got problems, the problems are just bigger than the actual spamming of concussive.
  15. If you have coordination dodge and 5 ranks of coordination and a destiny point you can make just about anything miss you. If you got coordination dodge from martial artist then you can also have precision strike which means thanks to the "discouraging wound" crit you can make sure you always destiny points to spend. And if you have a green nikto martial artist you get a free rank coordination, critical 3 from claws and you can decrease the critical cost to 1 with the 2 ranks of iron body so one advantage and you critical and get a destiny point and then you're untouchable by their next attack, and if you previously stacked the destiny pool all white you can do it a lot even if you don't score a critical in a particular round, so it doesn't matter if they have concussive