Jump to content

Vondy

Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Vondy got a reaction from Whiz Canmaj in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  2. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Kam01 in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  3. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Kam01 in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  4. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Aggressor97 in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  5. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Rithuan in You get 3500 xp   
    I build three 1166 point characters.
    Action economy is the thing.
  6. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Mindless Philosopher in Why or Why Are the Era books   
    For the same reason a Japanese company would manufacture cars in the US. Avoiding import-export taxes, shipping costs, corporate sales tax rates, avoiding supply chain risks, and the like in a major or primary market. If you sell globally you might find printing separate print runs in separate markets cheaper (or safer). For instance, a print run in the EU for European countries and one in the US, Canada, or Mexico for NAFTA countries might prove cheaper. I suspect that when they do the math, however, printing + shipping from China has proven less expensive (thus far) than printing smaller runs in their primary sales market. This could in part be volume and the fact that china is (roughly) equidistant from Europe and North America. If a British company had as many or more consumers in the Eurozone than in the US and Canada printing at home would make sense. If they have more customers in the North America? Not so much. I don't think any of us have access to their sales numbers, so all we can do is assume they've crunched the numbers and come up with what they think the best number for them is.
  7. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Mindless Philosopher in Why or Why Are the Era books   
    Tell him, not me. 
  8. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from RLogue177 in Why or Why Are the Era books   
    For the same reason a Japanese company would manufacture cars in the US. Avoiding import-export taxes, shipping costs, corporate sales tax rates, avoiding supply chain risks, and the like in a major or primary market. If you sell globally you might find printing separate print runs in separate markets cheaper (or safer). For instance, a print run in the EU for European countries and one in the US, Canada, or Mexico for NAFTA countries might prove cheaper. I suspect that when they do the math, however, printing + shipping from China has proven less expensive (thus far) than printing smaller runs in their primary sales market. This could in part be volume and the fact that china is (roughly) equidistant from Europe and North America. If a British company had as many or more consumers in the Eurozone than in the US and Canada printing at home would make sense. If they have more customers in the North America? Not so much. I don't think any of us have access to their sales numbers, so all we can do is assume they've crunched the numbers and come up with what they think the best number for them is.
  9. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Prometheus878 in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  10. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Prometheus878 in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  11. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Lorne in Party size...   
    For me, 1-3. I've run a lot of solo sessions and arcs over the years and love them with a good player. The ideal group for me, however, is 2-3 is ideal because I prefer to focus more on intrigue, role-play, and character arcs. That's not to say we don't have Burly Brawls and Action! But, its less than a lot of other games. I've run successful games for bigger groups, but find I don't care for those as much.
  12. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Aggressor97 in WWII Situations Suggestions   
    If your group is funny: Hogan's Heroes. A plucky team of Rebel prisoners who routinely break out of the Imperial military stockade to carry about rebel operations right under the Empire's noses. The Imperial Army Commander and senior-most seargeant are, of course, affably unwitting accomplices.
  13. Thanks
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  14. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Khazadune in Dawn of Rebellion Sourcebook   
    Personally, stats for camels are indispensable for any Star Wars game.
    I know you meant "cameos," but I couldn't resist. 😈
  15. Thanks
    Vondy got a reaction from TheShard in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  16. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Dayham in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  17. Thanks
    Vondy got a reaction from Vader is Love in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  18. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from themensch in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  19. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    RANT WARNING
     
    Sure. And that is a part of Lucas' evolving interpretation of his own work that renders him an unreliable creator. He injected a weird dissonance into his creation that was at odds with what he'd created before. People can play all the disingenuous moral equivalency games they want to make an argument that the Empire (or separatists) can be seen as good guys "from a certain point of view" and that the republic was so deeply flawed that it could be taken as "the real bad guys." Not all "points of view" are equally valid. There were "Good Germans" fighting for the Nazis in WWII. So what?
    Sophomoric "look how smart I am because I twisted the source material out of historical and meaningful context" tom-foolery and the result of a radically altered narrative from what the original trilogy suggested is not profound. Yes, that "point of view" is given some weak contextual support by Lucas in this "heroes on both sides" throw-away platitude, but does that line hold water when we actually watch the movies? Not really. The Jedi are clearly hidebound and make some flawed moral choices, but Dooku, Palpatine, and Grevious, et all are clear cut villains seeking evil ends through evil means. That there are off-screen heroes fighting on both sides is utterly irrelevant because the movies aren't about them.
    The Clone Wars are the public face of an ancient struggle between the Jedi and Sith. That's a struggle between light and dark, peace and suffering, good and evil. That's what Star Wars has always been about. That Lucas and a morass of expanded universe writers muddied those waters can produce interesting stories, but it can also be problematic in that it drives the incessant and banal "certain point of view" arguments that recast villains as heroes. Yes, politically, the clone wars were fought between a deeply flawed republic at war with a bunch of plutocratic corporate overlords. Yes, there were good people fighting on both sides. But, in the end, who cares? Star Wars has never been about galactic politics.
    I saw the original star wars in the theaters. I grew up with that trilogy. Star Wars was a story with clear heroes and clear villains that served as a morality play about good, evil, and redemption. Luke is our Hero. Vader is our villain. Luke, in the end, redeems Vader despite all the evil he did for Palpatine. Star Wars has always boiled down to morality. If you are arguing galactic politics and not basic morality you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the old republic was flawed, or that the trade federation and separatists were, respectively, cynical and useful idiots for the Sith. WThe Sith are the bad guys.
    Let's be really clear about this: Our heroes are Anakin (for a while), Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Padme. Our villains are Dooku, Palpatine, Maul, and Grevious. Ironically, while Obi-Wan tells us that only Sith deal in black and white, its Anakin's insistence on his twisted point of view that makes it impossible for him to turn away from the dark side when Obi-Wan is trying to redeem him. He employs weak-sauce  justifications for mass murder, terror, despotism, and hatred. I find most of the arguments in favor of the separatists and, worse, the Empire, that fans make echo Vader beat for beat.  hen you enslave entire species, destroy entire planets, and seek "peace, justice, and freedom" through mass murder, terrorism, and despotism, you aren't the good guys, no matter what you tell yourself.
    Obi-Wan said it all: "You have let this dark lord twist your mind until you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
    Or, to quote the Maharal of Prague: "If you want to sharpen your mind play chess; don't distort the truth."
    Star Wars I-III are a morality play about the fall of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars IV-VI are morality play about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Star Wars VII-IX are... honestly, I have no idea what they are about. Everything else is just commentary.
    And, with that, I am not commenting on this thread again.
     
     
  20. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from DarthHammer in Some doubts on Lightsaber Mods   
    Personally, I had no idea that it could be raining emitters, let alone crystals. That's fascinating and this thread has taught me a lot!
  21. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from DarthHammer in You get 3500 xp   
    I build three 1166 point characters.
    Action economy is the thing.
  22. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Typherian in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  23. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Galakk Fyyar in Imperial Navy Core Rulebook?   
    Lucas has explained Star Wars from his own "evolving" and self-contradictory points of view over the past 40 years. 
    As a result, anything Lucas says is only true "from a certain point of view" and "at a certain point in time."
    This is without working a mob of Expanded Universe writers with their own points of view and contradictory additions int the mix.
    For this reason, I generally only reference primary sources (on-screen canon) and take Lucas with a liberal dose of salt.
    I'm sure you've heard of the unreliable narrator in literature? Lucas is an unreliable creator.
  24. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from penpenpen in You get 3500 xp   
    I build three 1166 point characters.
    Action economy is the thing.
  25. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Some doubts on Lightsaber Mods   
    Personally, I had no idea that it could be raining emitters, let alone crystals. That's fascinating and this thread has taught me a lot!
×
×
  • Create New...