Unaligned Force User speculation

13Next

Replies

  • NicWester
    7973 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    lucaefor wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Who does this George fellow think he is.... haha. (Do you have a link, personal edification, so no big deal of you do not)

    Sure, I thought it was basic Star Wars knowledge but from starwars.fandom.com on the Wookiepedia page for Midi-Chlorians:

    "Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."
    ―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker[src]

    I thought you meant a clarifying statement from Lucus, like he has done on certain things.

    The force being connected to midi-chlorians doesnt really change anything in this conversation.

    I prefer .wav-chlorians, personally.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • TVF
    29882 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    lucaefor wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Who does this George fellow think he is.... haha. (Do you have a link, personal edification, so no big deal of you do not)

    Sure, I thought it was basic Star Wars knowledge but from starwars.fandom.com on the Wookiepedia page for Midi-Chlorians:

    "Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."
    ―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker[src]

    I thought you meant a clarifying statement from Lucus, like he has done on certain things.

    The force being connected to midi-chlorians doesnt really change anything in this conversation.

    I prefer .wav-chlorians, personally.

    giphy.gif
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • el_mago
    289 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    lucaefor wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Who does this George fellow think he is.... haha. (Do you have a link, personal edification, so no big deal of you do not)

    Sure, I thought it was basic Star Wars knowledge but from starwars.fandom.com on the Wookiepedia page for Midi-Chlorians:

    "Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."
    ―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker[src]

    I thought you meant a clarifying statement from Lucus, like he has done on certain things.

    The force being connected to midi-chlorians doesnt really change anything in this conversation.

    I prefer .wav-chlorians, personally.

    giphy.gif

    😆 nah, it was funny...in a super nerdy kind of way
    Cheers,
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Nihion wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Nihion wrote: »
    I think that Chirrut (and maybe Maz Kanata) represent a really interesting section of the universe: Force Believers. They can’t use the force, but they worship and sense it. I don’t like to see Chirrut as a force user because he introduces a new idea for Star Wars. I mean, would it not be cool to have a whole religion of people in the galaxy that worship the Force like the Jedi or Sith but cannot use it?

    That honestly sounds incredibly boring. Knowing of something awesome and not being able to use it?

    Personally, I think it could set up some really fun conflicts/characters. I think Chirrut was a really interesting character, and he never really did use the Force. What did happen could be considered a “Force Miracle,” which could be big for the Force Believers.

    I mean. Chirrut was definitely cool. But put a jedi in his place and that would have been a very different movie.

    And to see that just watch hishe rogue one.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Unaligned Force User sounds really bad, it should be Neutral Force User.

    Maybe they didnt want it to be confused with the neutral tag.

    But I also agree that neutral isnt really the "other option" between jedi and sith.

    That brings up a question that’s nagged at me since I read the new tag.
    Why are we getting “Unaligned Force User” as a tag when there is still NO ONE in the Neutral tag? I understand it for people such as SLKR and GL Rey, but Visas Marr? Ventress? Fulcrum? CAT? I would like to hear why we have a neutral tag, if we’re just going to add tags that say the exact same thing with more word salad.
    I’m not trying to be rude here, I’m genuinely curious about CG’s thought process.

    Neutral and Unaligned Force User don't mean the same thing though. Eg. Ventress isn't a Sith but she's still a Dark side user. CAT isn't a Jedi but she's still a Light side user. So why would they be neutral? What are they neutral in the context of? They're not neutral by virtue of simply being neither Jedi nor Sith, because they're still clearly aligned with the dark or light side.

    Honestly at this point I'd rather them just never give anyone the Neutral tag and just get rid of it in game. Seems like it would just raise a lot of questions as to who should get it and what exactly it means

    Actually I think the version of ventress in the game now should have the sith tag. If we got the bh version from season 6, the neutral tag and unaligned force user tag would fit better.

    There's definitely an argument to be made that ventress moved away from the darkside after dooku betrayed her. After the attempt at revenge fails, she doesn't really do anything evil after that. But she's also not aligned with the light.
  • Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    Depends on the bounty hunter. You can argue that boba fett was neutral from what we know about his arc.

    Yes we see him help the empire but that was just business that happened to coincide with another bounty.

    After his arc in the mandolorian, neutral probably fits him better than ds.

    Neutral doesn't mean you never get involved. Helping either side for credits can be neutral too.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    I would argue the opposite. Greed makes it so that you just don’t care. Zam Wesell says her attempt to kill Padme was “just a job”. Just because someone is paying you for one job, doesn’t mean they won’t follow the money. If the Rebels paid better than the Empire or Jabba, you can bet that Boba would be shadowing Han WHEREVER HE WENT. Playing both sides makes you Neutral in any sense of the word.

    The light side is about collective strength, the dark side is about thw strength of the individual. Playing both sides, in this case, is about nihilism. Say what you want about the narcissim of the sith, but at least it's an ethos... Neutrality, by your terms, is just greed over any sense of morality.
    DonPuto wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    Presumptuous statement

    How so? He's defining neutrality as self-interest. You fight for one side until the other pays you more, so you believe in cash more than you believe in the sith code or the rebellion. Greed and not believing in anything enough to actually commit. What would you call it?

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying this means bounty hunters are all dark side by necessity. Bounty hunting is just a job. The Mandalorian and Greef, they're light side for a reason. What I'm responding to is the faulty logic of people saying Boba Fett is neutral because he would betray anyone if offered a better price.

    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.
  • I think giving bhs the neutral tag would be great in the game. It wouldn't change much. But it would be cool if it allowed them to be used on both ls and ds events. Kinda like they are being hired out.
  • lucaefor
    48 posts Member
    edited May 22
    Agreed. Scoundrels always felt like more of a universal faction. They might decide to do the odd good deed but a lot of them are lawbreakers and motivated by self interest. Han & Chewie were smugglers, they were hardly squeaky clean.
  • NicWester
    7973 posts Member
    edited May 22
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • thedrjojo
    733 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    I would argue the opposite. Greed makes it so that you just don’t care. Zam Wesell says her attempt to kill Padme was “just a job”. Just because someone is paying you for one job, doesn’t mean they won’t follow the money. If the Rebels paid better than the Empire or Jabba, you can bet that Boba would be shadowing Han WHEREVER HE WENT. Playing both sides makes you Neutral in any sense of the word.

    The light side is about collective strength, the dark side is about thw strength of the individual. Playing both sides, in this case, is about nihilism. Say what you want about the narcissim of the sith, but at least it's an ethos... Neutrality, by your terms, is just greed over any sense of morality.
    DonPuto wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    Presumptuous statement

    How so? He's defining neutrality as self-interest. You fight for one side until the other pays you more, so you believe in cash more than you believe in the sith code or the rebellion. Greed and not believing in anything enough to actually commit. What would you call it?

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying this means bounty hunters are all dark side by necessity. Bounty hunting is just a job. The Mandalorian and Greef, they're light side for a reason. What I'm responding to is the faulty logic of people saying Boba Fett is neutral because he would betray anyone if offered a better price.

    Morality is subjective
  • thedrjojo
    733 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    Just cause he was in a cult doesn't mean it's a good cult. Mandolorians did battle and oppose the jedi...
  • Nihion
    3228 posts Member
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    Just cause he was in a cult doesn't mean it's a good cult. Mandolorians did battle and oppose the jedi...

    From my point of view the Jedi are evil!

    This thread actually just exposes one of Star Wars’ biggest tensions: The franchise is built on the idea of good vs. evil, a conflict in which both sides are clear and morality is decided for us. There is dark and there is light, and it’s as simple as that. However, a lot of Star Wars stories are beginning to play with the idea that morality can’t be simplified into light and dark. This makes it kind of complicated for the game to assign “sides.” Although Mace Windu is a Jedi Master, we all know that he’s not necessarily the most “light side” Jedi out there. In SWGOH, he is a light side champion; no ifs ands or buts. I look at their alignment choices this way: Most often, the characters whose perspectives in media we are given are light side. Their enemies are dark side. This is why Greef and Mando are light side.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    It hints heavily that he was raised by death watch. While they have a code of honor, they aren't light side. Did you not watch the clone wars? Pre visua isn't a good guy and it only got worse under maul. While it's possible that they became good, I would find it somewhat unlikely.
  • NicWester
    7973 posts Member
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    I would argue the opposite. Greed makes it so that you just don’t care. Zam Wesell says her attempt to kill Padme was “just a job”. Just because someone is paying you for one job, doesn’t mean they won’t follow the money. If the Rebels paid better than the Empire or Jabba, you can bet that Boba would be shadowing Han WHEREVER HE WENT. Playing both sides makes you Neutral in any sense of the word.

    The light side is about collective strength, the dark side is about thw strength of the individual. Playing both sides, in this case, is about nihilism. Say what you want about the narcissim of the sith, but at least it's an ethos... Neutrality, by your terms, is just greed over any sense of morality.
    DonPuto wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    Presumptuous statement

    How so? He's defining neutrality as self-interest. You fight for one side until the other pays you more, so you believe in cash more than you believe in the sith code or the rebellion. Greed and not believing in anything enough to actually commit. What would you call it?

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying this means bounty hunters are all dark side by necessity. Bounty hunting is just a job. The Mandalorian and Greef, they're light side for a reason. What I'm responding to is the faulty logic of people saying Boba Fett is neutral because he would betray anyone if offered a better price.

    Morality is subjective
    Not relevant. Moral commitment isn't subjective. If you're fighting for the Empire because they pay you, that's bad enough but betraying them because someone else paid you more is worse. That person doesn't stand for anything.
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    Just cause he was in a cult doesn't mean it's a good cult. Mandolorians did battle and oppose the jedi...
    Sect and cult aren't synonyms. Also, what's this have to do with anything?
    Nihion wrote: »
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    Just cause he was in a cult doesn't mean it's a good cult. Mandolorians did battle and oppose the jedi...
    This thread actually just exposes one of Star Wars’ biggest tensions: The franchise is built on the idea of good vs. evil, a conflict in which both sides are clear and morality is decided for us. There is dark and there is light, and it’s as simple as that. However, a lot of Star Wars stories are beginning to play with the idea that morality can’t be simplified into light and dark. This makes it kind of complicated for the game to assign “sides.” Although Mace Windu is a Jedi Master, we all know that he’s not necessarily the most “light side” Jedi out there. In SWGOH, he is a light side champion; no ifs ands or buts. I look at their alignment choices this way: Most often, the characters whose perspectives in media we are given are light side. Their enemies are dark side. This is why Greef and Mando are light side.
    That's because Star Wars is, and always has been, for kids. Adults can enjoy it, but all the movies and shows have been for kids--albeit Mandalorian is for older kids. So it's always been a pretty simple Good Guys vs Bad Guys.

    Adult fans have more nuanced views so they back-fill that into the movies to make them seem more complex than they are. But that's all personal interpretation that isn't actually in the text in most cases.
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    It hints heavily that he was raised by death watch. While they have a code of honor, they aren't light side. Did you not watch the clone wars? Pre visua isn't a good guy and it only got worse under maul. While it's possible that they became good, I would find it somewhat unlikely.

    Never saw Clone Wars. Saw a couple episodes and couldn't get into it. No tea, no shade, no lemonade, it's just not for me. But remember that light and dark is ultimately about the individual vs the collective which isn't necessarily a matter of good or evil.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Eweff
    389 posts Member
    Would love to see this guy
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    I would argue the opposite. Greed makes it so that you just don’t care. Zam Wesell says her attempt to kill Padme was “just a job”. Just because someone is paying you for one job, doesn’t mean they won’t follow the money. If the Rebels paid better than the Empire or Jabba, you can bet that Boba would be shadowing Han WHEREVER HE WENT. Playing both sides makes you Neutral in any sense of the word.

    The light side is about collective strength, the dark side is about thw strength of the individual. Playing both sides, in this case, is about nihilism. Say what you want about the narcissim of the sith, but at least it's an ethos... Neutrality, by your terms, is just greed over any sense of morality.
    DonPuto wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    BH aren’t neutral tho

    They absolutely are. They go where the money is - if the rebels had paid them appropriately then they would have been doing stuff for the rebels.

    BH are realistically as neutral as it gets among title characters.

    Greed and a lack of moral conviction doesn't make one neutral.

    Presumptuous statement

    How so? He's defining neutrality as self-interest. You fight for one side until the other pays you more, so you believe in cash more than you believe in the sith code or the rebellion. Greed and not believing in anything enough to actually commit. What would you call it?

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying this means bounty hunters are all dark side by necessity. Bounty hunting is just a job. The Mandalorian and Greef, they're light side for a reason. What I'm responding to is the faulty logic of people saying Boba Fett is neutral because he would betray anyone if offered a better price.

    Morality is subjective

    Debate this guy
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    It's easier to argue that greef and mando were neutral while they were bounty hunters than that they were light side. They put a hit out on a baby.

    They eventually changed their ways and then became aligned against gideon but that doesn't make them ls all along.

    Neither of them knew the job, it was just another puck from a renowned documentarian until the capsule opened. We don't have enough information about Mando or Greef to know their alignment at the start of the series--although, given that Mando was raised by a sect of Mandalorians with a strong collective ethos I would be inclined to say he was light from the get-go.

    Just cause he was in a cult doesn't mean it's a good cult. Mandolorians did battle and oppose the jedi...

Sign In or Register to comment.