"CCyrilS;c-2260309" wrote:"Nihion;c-2260303" wrote:"CCyrilS;c-2260297" wrote:"Nihion;c-2260281" 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.
"FerociousPanda;c-2260367" wrote:"AhnaldisGOAT;c-2260354" wrote:"Kyno;c-2260311" wrote:"Iy4oy4s;c-2260294" 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
"Ultra;c-2260483" wrote:
BH aren’t neutral tho
"NicWester;c-2261031" wrote:"AhnaldisGOAT;c-2261018" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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;c-2261020" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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.
"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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.
"NicWester;c-2261031" wrote:"AhnaldisGOAT;c-2261018" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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;c-2261020" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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.
"NicWester;c-2262161" wrote:"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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.
"NicWester;c-2262161" wrote:"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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.
"thedrjojo;c-2262260" wrote:"NicWester;c-2261031" wrote:"AhnaldisGOAT;c-2261018" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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;c-2261020" wrote:"NicWester;c-2260957" wrote:"RTS;c-2260531" wrote:"Ultra;c-2260483" 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;c-2262263" wrote:"NicWester;c-2262161" wrote:"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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;c-2262550" wrote:"thedrjojo;c-2262263" wrote:"NicWester;c-2262161" wrote:"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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.
"DarkHelmet1138;c-2262586" wrote:"NicWester;c-2262161" wrote:"Someone! I deleted too much!" 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.
