A little bit of Conflict for hurting people with the Force?

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

14 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Not the movie - the books.

After the White Council met in T.A. 2851, Radagast used his friends among the birds and beasts to act as spies for Saruman as he was searching the Gladden Fields for the One Ring - something Saruman likely anticipated, and Radagast had no idea of Saruman's true ambitions.

Further, Saruman manipulated Radagast in the summer of T.A. 3018 by saying he was willing to help Gandalf and sent Radagast in search of him. Radagast found Gandalf on the Greenway near Bree, and told Gandalf of Saruman's invitation to come to Orthanc - which Saruman planned all along, knowing Radagast was naive and innocent, and easy to manipulate.

Radagast did eventually help in Gandalf's escape by sending Gwaihir the Windlord, but he was still easily manipulated by Saruman - the once Wisest of the Istari, who eventually fell into reckless fear and hatred, coveting the Ring for himself.

There are also theories Radagast fell from the mission given to the Istari by the Valar - suggesting he had little discipline at all.

Given that I haven't read the Silmarillian,  or the Untold Tales, I can't comment on that one way or another. However, from my understanding of Middle Earth history from that time ( from reading secondary sources), everyone was duped by Sauron. Being wise does not make one infallible. 

13 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Your agreement with me and your statement that "one stat can most closely represent wisdom" contradict each other. My whole point was that no one characteristic is a "better match" for wisdom. Wisdom isn't a stat in this system, and it is not "best represented" by any one of the stats.

I think you missed my point. I said If I had to choose one stat to most closely represent Wisdom, I would choose Willpower, certainly more than Cunning or Presence. I agree that no one stat equals Wisdom. If anything, it's a combination of Intellect and Willpower. 

[StarkJunior 1,240]

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Given that I haven't read the Silmarillian,  or the Untold Tales, I can't comment on that one way or another. However, from my understanding of Middle Earth history from that time ( from reading secondary sources), everyone was duped by Sauron. Being wise does not make one infallible. 

Saruman - not Sauron - and he specifically targeted Radagast because he was naive and innocent. Saruman knew he couldn't manipulate Gandalf, which is why he was basically like "join or perish".

Still, the point stands you can be wise without being particularly disciplined or vigilant. They are not mandatory qualities of being wise.

Edited March 2, 2017 by StarkJunior

[GroggyGolem 2,848]

This conversation is about the Tolkien books now? Wat.

 

Back on the OT, Conflict is an interesting system. It requires the GM to have a firm hand to an extent. The newest episode of the Order 66 Podcast is a great look at Conflict, the Morality system and running games/playing games with Conflict.

[StarkJunior 1,240]

5 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

This conversation is about the Tolkien books now? Wat.

I only brought up Radagast to show Tramp's 'rules' about wise people isn't true. Still, @awayputurwpn summed it up nicely in regards to wisdom in FFG Star Wars.

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

6 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Saruman - not Sauron - and he specifically targeted Radagast because he was naive and innocent. Saruman knew he couldn't manipulate Gandalf, which is why he was basically like "join or perish".

Still, the point stands you can be wise without being particularly disciplined or vigilant. They are not mandatory qualities of being wise.

On this I disagree. Discipline and Vigilance are absolutely necessary for wisdom. That may not make one infallible, but wisdom, by its very definition, does require self-discipline and vigilance. 

3 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

This conversation is about the Tolkien books now? Wat.

 

Back on the OT, Conflict is an interesting system. It requires the GM to have a firm hand to an extent. The newest episode of the Order 66 Podcast is a great look at Conflict, the Morality system and running games/playing games with Conflict.

Sounds interesting. Got a link or episode number? 

[Kael 1,865]

39 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And I would disagree. I may not have much practical expereicne with the game yet, but I have read the core rules (and the source books I have) cover to cover, studying the mechanics thoroughly many times over. 

 

You can disagree but we have a great deal of evidence that shows you'd be wrong. You've read the material but you've frequently made mistakes about it. 

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

15 minutes ago, Kael said:

You can disagree but we have a great deal of evidence that shows you'd be wrong. You've read the material but you've frequently made mistakes about it. 

All you have "proven" is that we don't agree on each others interpretations of the rules. 

[Jedi Ronin 1,588]

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

 

I don't deny that. However, having a solid understanding of the rules before playing is certainly better than playing with no understanding of the system 

You do deny it when you approach people here who have a great deal of actual experience with complete disregard. You never approach any issue with humility. You are right about everything. 

If you do think that actually playing the game brings insight into understanding the game why do you never act like it when interacting with others?

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

You do deny it when you approach people here who have a great deal of actual experience with complete disregard. You never approach any issue with humility. You are right about everything. 

If you do think that actually playing the game brings insight into understanding the game why do you never act like it when interacting with others?

Because the ones I disagree with are contradicting what the rule books themselves say. That is why. 

[Jedi Ronin 1,588]

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because the ones I disagree with are contradicting what the rule books themselves say. That is why. 

Go back and read this entire thread and try to say that again. You're not going to gaslight me. 

[GroggyGolem 2,848]

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sounds interesting. Got a link or episode number? 

http://feeds.feedburner.com/Order66

 

Episode 95 - The Cabbage of Conflict

 

Direct link here

 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Order66/~3/BWGgFrPB4Pw/Order66PodcastEpisode95-TheCabbageOfConflict.mp3

 

It's great stuff! Hope you enjoy it. It affirmed my resolve to be less lenient with certain players that tend to try and negotiate out of ever taking Conflict.

Edited March 3, 2017 by GroggyGolem

[awayputurwpn 7,720]

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I agree that no one stat equals Wisdom. If anything, it's a combination of Intellect and Willpower. 

Sorry man, but you're wrong. 

It's right there in the descriptions of all the characteristics, and in the skills they all govern. 

Wisdom was spread out and made into a non-stat. "If anything," for a character to be truly wise, he must not have a low Intellect, Cunning, Willpower, or Presence—because a lack of any of these things might mean a lack of sense, of cleverness, of mental fortitude, or of confidence. A wise person is all these things: sensible, clever, confident, clear-headed.

And if course, the real proof in the pudding is his actions; the decisions he makes. Truly wise characters are roleplayed as such.

[Kael 1,865]

47 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

All you have "proven" is that we don't agree on each others interpretations of the rules. 

Nope we have proven you wrong countless times.  You just ignore it when it happens, then bold your next response, and change the conditions of the argument. You've shifted the goal post back so many times that we've had to construct a new stadium for the game. 

[Jedi Ronin 1,588]

Someone needs to post that Monty Python skit again. 

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

15 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Sorry man, but you're wrong. 

It's right there in the descriptions of all the characteristics, and in the skills they all govern. 

Wisdom was spread out and made into a non-stat. "If anything," for a character to be truly wise, he must not have a low Intellect, Cunning, Willpower, or Presence—because a lack of any of these things might mean a lack of sense, of cleverness, of mental fortitude, or of confidence. A wise person is all these things: sensible, clever, confident, clear-headed.

And if course, the real proof in the pudding is his actions; the decisions he makes. Truly wise characters are roleplayed as such.

I don't disagree that Wisdom is spread out among different stats, except on Cunning, given the specifics of its definition, but that's besides the point. My point was what stat to use IF you have to choose just one to best emulate it. Key word there-- IF. 

[HappyDaze 10,108]

47 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because the ones I disagree with are contradicting what the rule books themselves say. That is why. 

You read but do not comprehend what you are reading. The input has obviously exceeded your processing capabilities.

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

24 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You read but do not comprehend what you are reading. The input has obviously exceeded your processing capabilities.

Yes, I do comprehend what I read. 

[awayputurwpn 7,720]

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I do comprehend what I read. 

Like when I pointed out that Cunning governs skills traditionally associated with Wisdom, and then you said you agreed, "except on Cunning"?

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

1 minute ago, awayputurwpn said:

Like when I pointed out that Cunning governs skills traditionally associated with Wisdom, and then you said you agreed, "except on Cunning"?

I did comprehend that. That doesn't change my view on Cunning, however. 

[awayputurwpn 7,720]

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

I did comprehend that. That doesn't change my view on Cunning, however. 

That's okay. You can be wrong, I was just making sure.

[Jedi Ronin 1,588]

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because the ones I disagree with are contradicting what the rule books themselves say. That is why. 

So is that what you were doing when you dictated to me the details of my own character?

[Kael 1,865]

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I did comprehend that. That doesn't change my view on Cunning, however. 

I marvel at your inability to recognize the cognitive dissonance in most of your statements. 

[AnomalousAuthor 506]

Wow. This thread...dang.

[SEApocalypse 4,443]

18 hours ago, Kael said:

I would argue that you don't have a clear understanding of the rules. Not with the arguments you make. 

I would argue that practise is required to proof the claim of understanding the systems. Just claiming to have gotten it right without putting it to the test has no value at all. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by SEApocalypse

[NicoDavout 195]

Two pages earlier I found posts about "no politics", "masturbating", followed by " Socrates , Moses, Jesus, the Dali Lama" and on this page "Tolkien".....