PDA

View Full Version : Less Tradtional Jedi Weapons



bE
2 December 2001, 10:04 PM
How do you feel about less traditional weapons some Jedi use such as Light Staffs or fighting with Two sabres at once? It seems most of these Jedi are on the dark side... does this mean that a Jedi who uses such methods or tools of fighting are veering from the code? If so how would you approach this in Jedi Character terms? (alot of Questions I know.. but I am intrigued at this subject)

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
3 December 2001, 12:57 AM
I am very septical of any type of non-standard Jedi weapon for Jedi characters. During the times of great Jedi Warriors (yes I know wars not make one great) where Jedi where routinly called upon to do battle with evil I would have no problem with a Jedi PC having a lightstaff (or as we call it in my games: double bladed lightsaber). However, in a time such as right before TPM I would have the PCs Master strongly disapprove of the construction of a D.B.L. The same would go for any weapon I thought had a more offensive nature than that of a normal lightsaber. On the other hand if they wanted to use a more defensive weapon, such as the Kilian LightShield, I would allow it as long as the PC understands that a Jedi who doesn't have the tools to defend themself, let alone others, is no Jedi at all.

Aldaric
3 December 2001, 03:19 AM
I can't see Yoda disciplining someone for wanting to be different . . . "luminous beings we are . . . not this crude matter"

Fenrith
3 December 2001, 03:58 AM
We had a Jedi with us for a while who did not use a weapon. He was a pacifist who believed that there was never a reason to resort to violence to solve a problem. He had left the Jedi order because his master had insisted that he learn a lightsaber. With its focus on fighting skills and sabre use he believed that the Jedi were straying from the true essence of the force.

He was really good at force persausion.



Pacifist Jedi: "No Darth Maul, put the saber down and lets talk"
Darth Maul: "Hmm I wonder if he can use persausion with no hands?"
Bzz chup.:D

Donovan Morningfire
3 December 2001, 05:16 AM
I'd say it depends on your game and setting, but for the most part the Jedi Order doesn't see a real need for anything other than the typical lightsaber. Maybe a short lightsaber for those of a more peaceful bent, but that's about it. A double-lightsaber would be heavily frowned upon, as the majority of it's record of usage is by Sith/Dark Siders. Twin 'sabers is about as close to that as the Jedi Order would comfortably allow. Most of the other 'light' weapons are fan creations who wrote them up just because they thought it would be 'cool.' Some ideas were okay, but some were just crapola (like light-claws; think Wolverine).

elquemis
3 December 2001, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by FrobiWanKenobi
I am very septical...

I just thought this was pretty funny! :D

This thread is much like the lightsaber dillemma thread going on elsewhere, and I'm going to say here what I said there: In my opinion, a true Jedi probably wouldn't even use weapons if they had the choice. To go the other end of that issue and to purposefully use weapons that are potentially even more deadly than a lightsaber is rarely an indication of having your priorities straight.

That's just me, though. :)

Dr_Worm
3 December 2001, 08:26 AM
In D6 I gave my jedi players Lightsabers to start out with, but they only did STUN damage. In all other respects they were the same. They had a lot of fun with them, and later wanted to keep a stun setting on their personally made sabers. I said no because their master believed that if they didn't want to kill someone they shouldn't draw a lightsaber in the firstplace.

Now I am creating a badguy for my new D20 campaign who is a Wookie Dark Side Force Adept who has made light Ryyks. Can anyone give me some ideas of on stats for someting like this? He uses two.

bE
3 December 2001, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by elquemis

... to purposefully use weapons that are potentially even more deadly than a lightsaber is rarely an indication of having your priorities straight.


I agree with your line of thinking Elquemis. It all comes down to what the purpose is for constructing the weapon.

Aaron B'Aviv
3 December 2001, 03:25 PM
I think it all comes down to the way Obi-Wan described the Jedi to Luke.

"the Jedi were the guardians of peace in the galaxy for millennia" or something thereabouts... sadly, i have yet to memorize ANH.

And while you can see pacifism in there, I focus on the guardian aspect. Sometimes, you need to go to war to get peace. To abandon weapons is shortsighted, though I imagine various Jedi throughout the millennia did at some point or other.

I doubt there's a rule requiring Jedi to use lightsabers- there's simply a lot of appeal to the weapon, it has tremendous intimidation value, and can deal a lot of damage in capable hands.

But a jedi using another martial weapon- or even a blaster- is reasonable, and the idea of a Jedi using a form of weapon native to his species- the wookiee with the light-ryyk, seems feasible.

alas, I'm too tired to cook up stats for a light-ryyk right now, though. Perhaps later.

Krad-edis
3 December 2001, 08:16 PM
I agree with whoever it was who said "it all depends on the period you are playing in". A Jedi on most missions would only need a lightsaber, and in the hands of a master, it is lethal enough if need be.

What about Jedi at war? Jedi going into battle against incredible odds, or possibly after two or more dark Jedi would want a weapon that allows them to defend themselves, as well as giving them the ability to end the fight sooner and possibly cause less bloodshed to all of those around. There is a great picture of the defensive aspect of the Double bladed lightsaber on page 20 and 21 of the D20 Core Rules. Notice how Maul is in high and low guard at the same time. All he has to do is move his upper and lower arms 6 inches in either direction to adjust his guard, and he almost impossible to hit from the front and sides.

I think it is silly to think that those who choose to fight with a staff are evil, as opposed to those who fight with a sword. It is all what the weapon is being used to do...either to defend oneself from two or more attacking dark Jedi, or to whirl bloth blades around fueled on hate and rage and only stopping when all the Jedi and innocents are dead at your feet. Exar Kun and Maul have abused the DBL and therefore it has kind of been labeled "bad guy lightsaber", but there really isn't a bad guy lightsaber. Plenty of bad guys (Sith and Dark Jedi alike) have used only one blade, and still the lightsaber is the hallmark of the Jedi....? Kind of shows that the user's character is more important than the weapon they wield....for any weapon can be used for the wrong reason.

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
3 December 2001, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Aldaric
I can't see Yoda disciplining someone for wanting to be different . . . "luminous beings we are . . . not this crude matter"

Yoda didn't want to train Anakin or Luke because of their ages and, in the case of Anakin, the future was clouded. So disallowing the building of a D.B.L. would be a minor thing in my view.

bE
3 December 2001, 11:21 PM
I have a direct quote from the WotC Core Rulebook on Page 157 directly related to this topic


A Jedi should not advertise his skill... A lightsabre is an intimidating weapon but is not a tool for intimidation. Do not use a lightsabre to create fear in an opponent. Use it to end the fight as quickly and mercifully as possible... The Best Jedi can avert injury altogether, with only a word. In the past some Jedi have taken this to mean they should carry a second, less deadly weapon. There is no such thing. If a weapon can not kill, it is not truly a weapon. While a blaster can let a Jedi attack from a distance, it is just effective- and more in keeping with the Jedi Code to use the Force instead.

What do you think?

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
4 December 2001, 02:28 AM
First that's not a direct quote cause you spelled lightsaber wrong, but that was a thread in rants and raves a while back. I'd just be careful when you say things like "direct quote." (unless there are King's English versions of the CR than I am wrong)

As for the passage: its right. But my point is that what would Obi-Wan had done if he didn't have his lightsaber in the cantina? He tried to use other means. Had he been saber-less Luke might have died there. By maiming the Aqualish he also stopped any other thug who saw from bothering him or Luke while they were in Mos Eisley.

I agree with who said Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan could have tryed to talk Darth Maul out of fighting and probably ended the movie on a more sad note. Plus, Luke says in many books when talking to Leia or Jedi Students that all Jedi carried lightsabers, even the healers.

Aldaric
4 December 2001, 03:50 AM
well he articulated my point of view . . . better than I did . . .

Donovan Morningfire
4 December 2001, 07:44 AM
While the defensive merits of a double lightsaber are there, that also ties into it's darker nature as a weapon built solely for combat. It makes you more able to kill, which in and of itself is not dark side, but creates a greater temptation.

As to light-Ryyks, I'd say stat them the same as a lightsaber, the only difference is they'd be harder to build (in order to get the more-typical blade appearance as opposed to the cylinder of light).

bE
4 December 2001, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by FrobiWanKenobi
First that's not a direct quote cause you spelled lightsaber wrong, but that was a thread in rants and raves a while back.

In my opinion LightsabER (as spelled in the rulebook) is incorrect, since sabre is a french word I spelled it according to its roots. But then again we are getting a little off the topic of this particular thread. I guess every thread has a bit of sarcasm posted somewhere.

Back to the topic .. shouldn't the motive of a Jedi constructing and using a less traditional weapon be taken into account? This is what it all comes down to IMO. As was mentioned by Donovan it may not be directly in oppostion to the code but it may lead to temptation or a pattern of thinking that is not inline with Jedi doctrine.

Jedi_Starwind
4 December 2001, 02:34 PM
In my games I'd allow a D.B.L. only in times of war and even then only in the hands of a higher level Jedi Knight or Jedi Master. One for a Padawan is strictly forbidden, the way I see it once you attain a certain sense of peace in yourself you can use the weapon without the temptations of the DarkSide. This is kinda reflected with the rules for the lightside and darkside bonus dice at higher levels in chapter 9, I'm not sure if I'm the only one who sees this...if I am I guess I need a vacation lol.

Emperor Xanderich II
4 December 2001, 03:52 PM
A Jedi should be able to use any weapon he likes as long it follows the jedi code and is used in the service of good.

Using a scythe to cut sown innocents is obviously bad. Using a scythe to defend a poor village from the Imps is not so bad!

So why not make a light-scythe!!

SabbathKnight
4 December 2001, 05:23 PM
Ok .. I brought this up in another thread, but I wondering if this thread would be better. In pondering the Lightsabre or Lightsaber, the question of the Sith came to mind. These Dark Jedi are cast out to the other side of the galaxy and do nothing but War. War with other reaces and themselves. It would stand to reason that the Sith should have created the Light "Weapons" not the Peace loving Jedi who had swords to begin with. Why would the Jedi create the deadlest hand held weapon and not the War-like Sith who constantly fought ... :?

Donovan Morningfire
4 December 2001, 05:25 PM
A light-scythe is one of the few non-saber lightweapons I've allowed into the game. Of course, the guy using it is a Sith Warrior who goes for the whole Grim Reaper gimmick (right down to using the skull of a large humanoid for a face mask). And it beat the "oh look, the dark side badguy is using a double lightsaber just like Darth Whotisname" syndrome.

As for what I think the Jedi Council would approve as lightsaber variants, they are
- twin lightsabers (probably using the second-hand one more for defense)
- regular and short lightsaber (akin to the swashbuckler combo of rapier and main-gauche)
- twin short lightsabers (again, the second one is there more for defense)
- single lightsaber (probably only used by those who carry a saber for solely defensive purposes, such as those who focus on the healer and/or diplomat aspect of the Jedi)

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
4 December 2001, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by SabbathKnight
It would stand to reason that the Sith should have created the Light "Weapons" not the Peace loving Jedi who had swords to begin with.

When the Sith were exiled the Lightsaber had not been discovered. They, along with the Jedi of old, used regular swords as weapons. They didn't find out about lightsabers until the Hyperspace wars, I think.

I have thought about the creation of a shorter light-knife myself Donovan. I dismissed it after picturing a Jedi with it. However, on of my Jedi PC constructed his lightsaber with a blade length selector where the choices were: short (to use as a tool to get in to tight spaces and less noticable), normal, and long (at around 3m, he used that selection only once: to cut thought 2.5m thick blast doors).

SabbathKnight
4 December 2001, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by FrobiWanKenobi


When the Sith were exiled the Lightsaber had not been discovered. They, along with the Jedi of old, used regular swords as weapons. They didn't find out about lightsabers until the Hyperspace wars, I think.

No, your quite right about the Weapon development. As it follows the "Golden Age of the Sith" and "The Fall of the Sith Empire". My question is, would it not make sence that the Sith , as portraid, would have the Light weapons instead of the Jedi. What would be the reason the Jedi would create such a weapon ?:?

Donovan Morningfire
4 December 2001, 06:28 PM
Actually, I figured the short lightsaber was more akin to a short-sword than a dagger. And the typical Jedi warrior wouldn't use such a dinky thing. It's far more defensive than offensive.

Wileama
4 December 2001, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by SabbathKnight


No, your quite right about the Weapon development. As it follows the "Golden Age of the Sith" and "The Fall of the Sith Empire". My question is, would it not make sence that the Sith , as portraid, would have the Light weapons instead of the Jedi. What would be the reason the Jedi would create such a weapon ?:?

Well there are some things u can do with a light sabre u can't do with a good old sword. Like reflect blaster blots away from an innocent civilain. Cutting through a blast door to get to hostages. Help to end a fight with an intimidating weapon. A sword just isn't versitale enough.

Anyway i also tried to go for a light scythe. However my players torn my technical explination apart. Consider it to be complete bull and found that the sith lord had trouble using a saber as effectively as a saber.

Anyway in the end if the weapon is more offensive then defensive then it really ins't apporite unless its a time of full blown war. Even then once the wars over it should be gotten rid of if u ask me.

Donovan Morningfire
4 December 2001, 07:22 PM
I think there was some techno-babblish explanation of how an energy scythe could work on at the official Gundam site, or a related site (Gundam Deathscythe's primary weapon). Full of holes as far as real science goes, but this is Star Wars after all. Real science can't explain half the stuff they pull :D

Actually, a scythe-type weapon would be easier to use than an actual lightsaber. Bigger handle, akin to a quarterstaff, which means less chance of accidently slicing off your own body parts. Of course, unless you used Sith alchemy to strengthen the handle, it would be very easy for a classic lightsaber wielder to disable such a weapon. But it would be great for intimidation value.

Wileama, I feel a modicum of your pain. I had a player who once questioned the science behind something I had as a MacGuffin. So I told him that you can only use stuff that our real-world science can totally justify. Needless to say he shut up pretty quick when he realized his merc would be left with a combat knife and his britches (though even the last was semi-questionable).

Corsair
4 December 2001, 09:40 PM
What about a Force Pike? I am sure a Jedi could be quite effective with one of those. Plus, they aint as hard to come across as a DBL, and still do a good deal of damage.

Dr_Worm
4 December 2001, 11:58 PM
Especially if you are of an extreemly strong species like Wookies. If you get to add strength to your attack-wahoo. Of course you can't deflect blaster bolts with it.

dragonseye
5 December 2001, 06:31 AM
I would think that lightsabers like a light naginata could have been found amongst the Jedi. The Naginata was a women's deffensive weapon in Feudal Japan- women were taught to use this weapon in order to protect herself and the rest of her household if the household was attacked. (Women- or teenage girls- are still traditionally taught to use it in Japan.) The light naginata would esentially be a regular lightsaber blade on a longer pole. To me this would not be much different from having variable lengths on a regular light saber.

I believe the light saber was originally created as a way to focus a Jedi's training; it was not made origianlly to be a weapon alone but more like a tool for training in the ways of the Force. The lightsaber was used to focus a Padawan's connection to the Force as well as to open him further to his surroundings. (It's kind of hard for me to explain, and for another to understand, unless you've had some form of a martial arts.) I think that is why it was created originally, but it eventually became a weapon for fighting more than for training.

wolverine
5 December 2001, 08:48 AM
I would think a quarterstaff or sai would also be a good choice for a jedi. But the strangest weapon i have seen for one, was in a dark side campaign, the reigning dark jedi was well noted for using shruken (ninja throwing stars), and hand axes.

Mjolner
5 December 2001, 10:28 AM
I don't see a problem with allowing Jedi characters to use non-traditional weapons.

In my opinion, and I think someone already said this, said, it's the character of the Jedi and not the weapon he carries, that determines whether he leans towards the Dark Side or not.

Now, if there was a rule in the CR that allowed you to get a defensive advantage from dual-wielding two weapons or wielding a double weapon, it would be even easier to justify a Jedi doing either of those.

For example, I allow a +1 to Defense in melee when Fighting Defensively or doing a Total Defense, for every attack you have past the first, but only if you have the right feat for the weapon. I mean, you can get a bonus from Tumbling to your Defense...so why not from being a better fighter. If you have a shield of some kind, you get the shields regular bonus at any time, and the bonus from above added to it when appropriate.

It works out great, and it gives people a reason to carry different weapons for defensive purposes, not just for offense. A similar rule could be used to justify why a Jedi would carry a different weapon then the traditional single lightsaber.

I wouldn't allow a padawan to carry, or even train with, anything but a single blade except under very special circumstances. After all, they're supposed to learn the basics of the Jedi code and tradition.

But, I can't see why a skilled Jedi master who developed a set of DBL techniques would be frowned upon by his fellow Jedi as long as he didn't show any signs of Dark Side taint.

Also, as someone said, the Jedi reaction might depend on the era of play.

The Jedi of old were stricter with what was acceptable or not. Even though I doubt they would outright disallow a Jedi to use a specific weapon, they might question his reasoning behind doing so.

Luke, in the NJO era, seems to be much less strict. He would likely allow a Jedi to carry any weapon that wasn't an outright "murder-machine", as long as the Jedi didn't show signs of turning towards the Dark Side and the new weapon was part of the process. Heck, in the book Star by Star the Jedi are using various types of blaster, even portable blaster-cannons when they go on a mission to Yuuzhan Vong worldship.

Besides, the Jedi use starfighters...that is very much a weapon with great offensive capabilities and not so many defensive ones. If that is allowed and even condoned by the Jedi Council...then why not DBL?

Frzz Drubar
14 December 2001, 06:20 AM
if a starfighter why not a DBL?

try defending yourself from a starship with a Lightsaber

it specifically states you cannot deflect starship blaster fire

I mean along that rationale if you can have a starfighter why not a Deathstar, I mean it's only a weapon...the deathstar doesn't kill only the person ordering the other people to fire up teh lasers and find a target planet.


I think the idea is the room and temptation for abuse

I'm sure a Deathstar could be used wisely without abusing it (destroying uninhabited quarantined planets for instance) but the temtation is far too great to kill and destroy.

No one is saying use a DBL get a DSP all anyone is saying is that the temptation is greater so more care needs to be taken.

Ronin
14 December 2001, 09:44 PM
I have a female Gungan padawan NPC in an adventure I`m writing who uses a lightsabre and a Gungan personal energy shield.....
`twas inspired by Gladiator mostly....
the idea opens up loads of other possibilities with the personal energy shield...including the Roman`s turtle-tactic with infantry units (interlocking their shields on all sides and over the top)....
endless possibilities.

Kayle Skolaris
14 December 2001, 11:19 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! I think we're all missing something in that rulebook quote... Check this out...


While a blaster can let a Jedi attack from a distance, it is just effective- and more in keeping with the Jedi Code to use the Force instead.

Am I reading that right? It's MORE in keeping with the Jedi Code to use the Force to ATTACK from a DISTANCE than to just pick up a frelling blaster rifle and pull the trigger??? WTF??? Somebody tell me I'm reading that wrong!

Gulmyros
15 December 2001, 12:07 AM
I didn't read that as 'use the force to attack,' merely 'use the force.' There are certainly many things a Jedi could do besides shoot first and ask questions later. And using the force instead of a blaster might even lead to a non-violent resolution...

Gully

Frzz Drubar
15 December 2001, 10:32 AM
absolutely, since Jedi shouldn't use the force to injure other people

The Admiral
15 December 2001, 11:56 AM
One thing leaping to my mind in this debate is that one might find it helpful to go back to the original inspiration for the Jedi; the Samourai.

Samourai used Katana, and aside from Doctors, were the only people in Japan permitted to do so. As such, the Katana was a symbol of status, and was at the core of being a Samourai. Samourai would be loath to fight with anything else.
The other weapon traditionally used would be the Wakizashi, a short sword / long knife often, but not always, carried along with the katana.
In addition, Samourai cavalry occasionally wielded No-Dachi, very long swords for taking on ground troops from horseback.

The enemies of the Samourai varied, sometimes other samourai (during the numerous fuedal wars) bandits, warbands, and general criminal types. All the various enemies fought against would wield a huge array of weapons. Still, a Samourai used a Katana because a Samourai used a Katana. A Jedi uses a lightsabre because a Jedi uses a lightsabre.

One could draw a parallel between the Sith and the Ninja. Maul's actions are right in keeping with the Ninja way, right up to taking on Samourai in 1 on 1 combat, which no Ninja would voluntarily do, on the grounds of it being virtual suicide.

Anyway, to sum up; Jedi use lightsabres. It's both traditional, and a symbol of authority.

"Cool, flashy, funky. A Jedi craves not these things. Now, off those sunglasses take."

crazyguy7007
20 December 2001, 06:52 AM
In the New Jedi Order Books, during a fight with the Vong, Luke Skywalker used two singlebladed lightsabers and killed a couple of Vong, granted this is the EU, but I thought i would put my two cents in.

Frzz Drubar
20 December 2001, 07:08 AM
I think the point is that he doesn't use them regularly, but when he really needs something extra. I haven't played with any Vong yet, but their stats look outrageous. I'd want whatever I could get my hands on personally (acid, poison, massive explosives, giant ranged weapons, oh yeah and shields, lots of 'em, and force fields too), but then again, I'm no Jedi Knight.

dragonseye
20 December 2001, 02:15 PM
Admiral, (very sorry for the long winded speech, but I've had some interest in feudal japan's history, so I thought I would pipe in about some extra stuff that I know.)

Hence why I sugested the naginata. Though you will most likely not see too many men carrying one since it was and in most respects still is considered a "woman's" weapon. (Many easy ways to poke fun of a male player character's manhood if he enjoys carrying such a weapon- at the least for the GM's NPC's. :D )

Also, to expand on your mentioning of the Nodachi, Wakizashi, and the Katana, here goes. For a Samurai to carry a Nodachi, it was something of dishonor to do so; it was along the lines of an insult to his Katana to weild the nodachi instead of this Katana.

Also, the wakizashi was supposed to be the "staus symbol" to show that he was of the samuria caste; for any other of less than noble blood to carry one, would also be considered a dishonour and reason enough for a samurai to cut the peasent down (the same would apply to a peasent carrying a Katana, but I believe it was more of an afront for the peasent to carry a wakizashi.) the wakizashi itself was held in such regard becasue it was with this weapon that a samurai committed Seppuku (or Hari Kari to others,) which was a form of ritual sucide. Women also were permitted to carry a weapon (I believe it was called the Aiguchi- a small knife without a hilt) that was intended for the same purpose in case bandits/ other lords attacked her household (also the reason women were trained in the use of the Naginata.)

Anyway, the samurai tradition (as would a setting on a "Feudal Japanese" Planet) would probably make for an interesting adventure or two in the SW universe.

bE,

I also don't believe there are any specific refrences to what type of weapon (if any) a Jedi should carry. Tradition does hold strong roots for a societiy. But sometimes, those same traditions were made to be broken (or at the least bent.) (Also, one of the greatest swordsman birthed from Japan- Musashi, the writer of the Book of Five Rings- could make a boken (a wooden practice katana) a deadly weapon. Which would be a greater example of knwoledge, prowess, and skill- a Jedi carrying a lightsaber who can cut through anything, or a Jedi who beat the afore mentioned Jedi with a wooden practice sword?)

The Admiral
21 December 2001, 01:09 AM
For a Samurai to carry a Nodachi, it was something of dishonor to do so;
Indeed, yes, a Nodachi is not an honourable weapon per se, but honour occasionly gives way to simple practicality; using a katana to attack foot-soldiers from the back of a horse is just plain silly; Katanas are very short weapons, whereas cavalry horses are, what we in the trade refer to as, very tall.

I think what you're saying is that for a Samourai to carry a nodachi INSTEAD of a Katana would be very unlikely. This is true, Samourai wielding a Nodachi would almost certainly have their Katana on them, but not being used. A samourai voluntarily being more than about six feet from his sword is very unlikely.

On a side note, the line 'not as clusmy or random as a blaster' is a paraphrase from (I think) Hidden Fortress, and basically, you should supplant 'musket' for 'blaster'. Blasters are neither clumsy nor random, at least not in the sense of the line. Muskets are, they take about 20 seconds to reload, and at anything farther than about ten feet, couldn't be guarenteed to hit the broad side of a barn. (Certainly they couldn't in fuedal Japan).
With the question of Jedi, their weapons, and Star Wars, the idiosyncracies of blasters vs muskets is an interesting one. Ultimately the Samourai were wiped out by high tech imported firearms from europe, which were certainly not random.
In order to compensate for the fact that 'modern' blasters aren't random, Jedi are able to deflect blaster bolts. I've never been entirely happy with that,,,

Anyway, veering slightly back on topic, if one continues to use the Samourai as the model for Jedi combat, then a Jedi would consider the user of a blaster to be lower than the low, only beaten in the vileness stakes by Sith.
Jedi would never ever use a blaster.

The Samourai died out because their traditions and philosophy were too inflexible to adapt to a changing world. The Jedi died out because, well, we'll see,,,

Bas
24 December 2001, 06:33 PM
I just bought a SW comic recently. In it, you had the birth of Darth Maul's double bladed lightsaber.

He's on a mission to assasinate a great reclusive Jedi Master. He sneaks up on the Twi'lek with his lightsaber (single bladed at this point), but as he raises it to strike , the master whips out a wooden staff and proceeds to kick Maul's ass with it, ending with knocking the saber out of his hand. Maul leaves humiliated, builds the doubled bladed one, and after a breif second battle, he kills the master.

Anyway. All that's sort of irrelevant (except, perhaps, that the Master defeated a Jedi with a lightsaber with only a wooden staff), he ends his tale (the comic is in the form of Darth Maul telling Sideous what happened), the Palpatine suggests he find a name for the weapon... but Maul replies "...it shall remain an instrument of murder... and nameless."

"An instrument of murder"... because that's about all it's good for. If your defending yourself, you only need a single blade- that should be plenty.

Oh, and as for


Originally posted by The Admiral

...a Jedi would consider the user of a blaster to be lower than the low, only beaten in the vileness stakes by Sith.
Jedi would never ever use a blaster.



They aren't anywhere near exact copies of the Samourai; blasters, it's pretty clear from the movies, are acceptable. The lightsabers, in the hands of trained people, are better.

Donovan Morningfire
24 December 2001, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Bas
They aren't anywhere near exact copies of the Samourai; blasters, it's pretty clear from the movies, are acceptable. The lightsabers, in the hands of trained people, are better.
The only 'Jedi' we see using a blaster in the movies so far is Luke, and that's before he gets the full training in what a Jedi is. Even after the crash course with Yoda, he still hasn't completely learned his lessons. Note that in RotJ, he doesn't even carry a blaster. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan (both young and old) rely solely on their lightsabers, and for range attacks use Force Push.

Bas
24 December 2001, 07:07 PM
What I meant was, they aren't considered "dispicable", as someone said they would be if the whole Samari comparison was carried through. As soon as the Jedi can use lightsabers, they should.

Gulmyros
24 December 2001, 07:16 PM
On a side note, the line 'not as clusmy or random as a blaster' is a paraphrase from (I think) Hidden Fortress, and basically, you should supplant 'musket' for 'blaster'. Blasters are neither clumsy nor random, at least not in the sense of the line. Still on the side note: maybe Obi-Wan meant that blasters were clumsy and/or random when you gave 'em to stormies??? :)

Oh, no, hold on. Go back to the Sandcrawler. "Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

Ok, bag it. Stormtroopers: Precise I guess old Ben spent too much time in the Jundland Wastes, eh?

:)

Gully

saucercrab
24 December 2001, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Bas:
"An instrument of murder"... because that's about all it's good for. If your defending yourself, you only need a single blade- that should be plenty. I would think that a double 'saber would be better at defense than a regular 'saber, as a wielder would have 2 ends to defend himself with. Maul admirably demonstrated parrying two 'sabers, one after the other, with both ends. It would've been much harder if he had only a single blade.

I did like the story, but the art could've been a lil' better. :)

Frzz Drubar
26 December 2001, 06:12 AM
This weapon does not provide you with more defenses in game mechanics. It provides you with another attack. It doesn't give you a free dodge or a fee parry or even a bonus to such things. In game mechanics it gives you an extra attack.

Go and get a broomstick and try to defend yourself against two people from both sides of you. I think you will find that it's not so easy to defend yourself afterall. While it looked cool in the movie (and usually does) in the game you can defend yourself using lightsaber defense from as many attacks as you are aware of whather you have one lightsaber or two.

The effect on gameplay is ultimately an offensive one, and the potential temptation to use it as Maul did in the comic is too great to be trusted to a padawan or even a Knight. And a Master, a true master, would prefer a long stick, anyway. ;)

FlipDog 2000
26 December 2001, 07:34 AM
What about a non-traditional, non-Jedi weapon of a Light-Axe. Uses 8 lightsaber crystals and does 3d12+Str damage...

Frzz Drubar
26 December 2001, 07:43 AM
Why does it do more damage? and what's with 8 crystals? Do lightsabers have one or three already? Is it like a twohanded battle axe thing? with a broad blade? Someone might be able to chop the top off with a lightsaber. I mean , that that is a common move when an axe fights a sword. I think it would make a cool gladitorial weapon or executioner's ax or something like that.

saucercrab
26 December 2001, 06:24 PM
Frzz,
Sorry, I don't always think in terms of game mechanics. And I can't wield both ends of a broomstick proficiently, let alone one end. But a person who is adept at it would be better off against more than one opponent, even it he or she only uses one end to attack. IMO.

stoic_75
28 December 2001, 04:20 PM
It doesn't matter what weapon they use. Weapons are bad all in themselves. Whether your carving soemone up with a blade, or blasting someone into oblivion with a cannon you are still hurting/killing someone. It is only one's motives that are good or evil. If you use the light staff to cut off a hand instead of kill him, it's not evil.

The Admiral
31 December 2001, 06:59 AM
Weapons are bad all in themselves.

It is only one's motives that are good or evil.

You're contradicting yourself there, somewhat.

Personally, I'd agree that weapons are irrelevant to the morality of killing; as long as there are people willing to do harm to their own ends, there is the neccesity to have means to defend yourself / ideology. Weapons per se are merely the tools of doing so in a circumstance where violence or killing are the only methods to prevent further harm.
Therefore, I disagree that weapons are bad all in themselves.

However, lets not slant this debate into the ethics of violence and weapons, this debate concerns only what manner of weapons would be acceptable for use by a Jedi.

By all means, start a new thread, however, I'd suggest 'The Ethics and Morality of lethal force in space opera' as a title,,,

Frzz Drubar
3 January 2002, 06:30 AM
I'm really more interested in what weapons a jedi thinks he can get away with using without tempting the dark side, but great title.

Bas
3 January 2002, 03:56 PM
My general point is, a jedi uses violence as a last resort; therefore, a Jedi should not carry a big weapon; a simple sword, in this case an energy one, does quite nicely. Why that instead of a blaster? Because in the hands of a trained jedi, it gives more options than a blaster. A "stun" setting can be replacedvia effect mind or similar; you can easily defend yourself an others; you can cut through anything; and you can still, if all else fails, kick some serious ass.

Ronin
3 January 2002, 09:02 PM
And most importantly; it looks good.

How many times has the `lightsaber` been copied? I`ve lost count! It is so cool and original.
(Ronin braces himself for some smart@$$ to tell him that SW was not the first source of laser-swords.....;) )

Frzz Drubar
4 January 2002, 06:36 AM
In theory I agree with the whole jedi feel and show of force, however Luke frequently uses a blaster, but doesn't carry one since one is usually pretty handy.

FlipDog 2000
7 January 2002, 11:51 AM
How 'bout a bunch of 1d8 + Str damage, 1 crystal each, light throwing daggers?

Bas
7 January 2002, 02:52 PM
You gotta balance throwing weapons... and considering it's 100% hilt, and the blade has to weight, it can't really be done. UNless you use TK, which seems fairly Dark side pointish to me. I'm not familiar with d20; but unless I'm mistaken, lightsaber damage is not increased by strength. Period.

The Admiral
7 January 2002, 04:24 PM
A throwing weapon only needs to be balanced so that it will rotate somewhat predictably in the air, as the blade has no weight it is irrelevant to the balance of the device, The 'lightknife' would need only be balanced in and of itself, and be somewhat aerodynamic.

GreenCape
8 January 2002, 06:53 AM
Slightly off-topic here (excuse me): how would a light throwing knife behave when it hit somebody/something? Usually the blade just gets stuck in the body/target, but in this case the whole handle might go in. What do you all think?

So-Var Leet
8 January 2002, 07:40 AM
I think that the hilt would be a little gooy. :D :) :p

Seriously now - I don't think you could make a lightknive fly perfectly level or it would go through the thing you were trying to hit and probably go through whatever was behing that guy. So in the end, you would just end up losing your lightknive. If it's tumbling, it would just cut everything to shreads and then stop once the hilt hit something solid.

Now, if you could rig some kind of timer and set it to a couple of seconds, then you might not loose it.

Or you could add progs coming off of the hilt. That way if it hit flesh then it would stop traveling through the target.

Did I exlpain that okay? Or was I just rambling? :?

The Admiral
8 January 2002, 01:13 PM
only a problem if the blade is wider than the hilt, which is, AFAIK, impossible,,,

Frzz Drubar
9 January 2002, 08:38 AM
I suppose you coudl get the blade to turn off when the hilt makes contact. You would have to retrieve them but that was going to happen anyway. What about a disc that emits the blade all around after you throw it. Like a shuriken. That said I don't think throwing your lightsaber with TK is a DSP unless you injure someone with it. Also shuriken and daggers don't seem very jedi KNIGHT if you receive my meaning.

Bas
9 January 2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Frzz Drubar
Also shuriken and daggers don't seem very jedi KNIGHT if you receive my meaning.

I agree, except with emphasis on Jedi, not knight.

FlipDog 2000
10 January 2002, 01:12 PM
I thought we were talking about NON-Traditional Jedi Weapons...the funny thing it that I have used each of those weapons in games. Since the feat Throw Lightsaber has to be in effect with the light-throwing daggers, you're character has move object to bring them back and shut them off. However, you could build them with homing beacons so they would never get lost.
As for the Axe...it's just mean. I have created a character from the Alien Anthology with it. A Mantellian Savrip with a base strength of 26 at Lv. 1...weilding it...very mean! Of course he couldn't weild it until Lv. 4 minimum.

heivilinj
10 January 2002, 01:29 PM
Look at it from a different (non-Star Wars - *gasp*) perspective.

Think about "The Karate Kid". In one scene Miyagi is in a rowboat and Danny is balancing in the bow practicing blocks. Miyagi asks him why he's learning to fight. After a couple of false answers it dawns on Danny "So I won't *have* to fight!".

Thus a Jedi should learn the lightsabre to focus themselves as well as attune themselves to the Force. If they decide to later set aside weapons in favor of other means of conflict resolution then that might be what the Force has lead them to.

GM Dave
12 January 2002, 04:05 PM
First of all, I don't think there is such a weapon that will earn a Jedi an instant DSP for taking up. In the New Jedi Order, I like to think that the "old ways" of the Jedi have been largely forgotten, so that a Jedi is just as likely to wear a blaster as a lightsaber. Weapons are just tools, as are starships and other devices. Jedi definitely don't shy away from technology, and in fact they embrace it. The lightsaber itself is obviously quite a complicated and hi-tech weapon in the first place, and its use is beyond the understanding of just about everybody else.

Why then does it seem like all the Jedi of the Old Republic favor only a single-bladed lightsaber, and don't carry blasters at all? The latter part of that is easy to answer: a lightsaber in the hands of a fully-trained Jedi can return blaster bolts to their senders. In this capacity, it's just as good as a blaster. It is neither as clumsy nor as random. And it's a poignant thing to deflect someone's blast back at them, going back to the notion that Jedi are peacekeepers.

Darth Maul's double-bladed lightsaber is perfect for Darth Maul. He was trained specifically to hunt the Jedi, I believe, and so he has a weapon that makes him most effective against multiple Jedi opponents. He's got two blades because he needs them to be effective (and because the script sez so, really).

On the other hand good-guy Jedi of the Old Republic usually don't have this same job requirement, since I think they would rarely, if ever, engage in duels with lightsaber-armed foes before the Sith re-appeared in the Episode I era. More likely, there would be two or more Jedi facing blaster-armed criminals, so having anything more than a single blade on your lightsaber is really overkill.

And the Jedi are not just warriors: they have to be ambassadors and negotiators too (or spies and trackers if you're playing Sith). As they grow in experience, they should be developing skills in many areas, so if you're dumping all of your experience points into advancing your combat skills just so you can use some of these exotic "light-weapons," you're not really playing a true Jedi (or Sith). Keep it simple, I say. :D

Carrying two lightsabers is cool with me, but you've got to have lots of skill to use them effectively in tandem. This is an example of a Jedi or Sith created only for combat, so as not be very interesting in other respects.

Rebel Scum
14 January 2002, 08:49 AM
One theory that I have that Jedi use single-bladed lightsabers is that they are given a single bladed lightsaber when they start on the Jedi path. The single-bladed lightsaber is perhaps the easiest of the weapons to learn, hence the beginners receive them. It would also make sence that a Jedi would continue using the weapon to: (a) master it rather than starting over with a new weapon, (b) spend time contemplating other matters of the force rather than new weapon style or skills, (c) follow in their master's footsteps who, more than likely, uses a single-bladed lightsaber.

While other variant weapons are possible, they are frowned upon. A Jedi who uses a double-bladed or dual-wields lightsabers is, more often than not, seen as one that is strongly interested in combat. While in itself not bad, we all know that "adventure, excitement, a Jedi craves none of these."

While this theory not only explains the predominace of single-bladed lightsabers among Jedi it also can be extened to the Sith. Since the Sith were warlords and had constant battles, we see a greater variety of weapons. The greater variety allows for new strategies and more ways to kill. The Jedi didn't use this philosophy because they looked to tradition and sought balance.

For further proof take a look at SW characters. First, Darth Vader, was a Jedi and was trained with a single-bladed saber and continued to use it. I have a feeling that in episode II, Anakin will be eager to fight and want to master his lightsaber skills so that he can fight well. Also, Darth Maul was a combat master and Jedi killer, he wanted a weapon that would be able to attack from more positions than a normal lightsaber (hence the attack rules dealing with the double-saber.) Luke and Obi-Wan were given a single-bladed weapon and were taught to use them, hence they continued with them when they got older.

To tie this back to the Star Wars Roleplaying game, while a Jedi could use something other than a single-bladed lightsaber, there would have to be a very good reason for doing so. (ie. Luke using two lightsabers in a dramactic fight againts the Yuuzhan Vong against overwhelming odds to save someone.)

Holocronik
25 September 2002, 12:35 PM
There's a bit in the RCRB that quotes that "if you turn your lightsaber on, you must be prepared to take a life." I agree w/ GM Dave :Semantics aside, the idea of labeling a tool (such as a D.B.L.) "evil" just because it's used mainly by Dark-siders is kinda' giving it the "doubt of the benifit", as it were. A tool is still a tool, even used for bad means. Remember, this is a place where ANYTHING can happen (small-sized lightsaber-spheres-of-annihilation anyone?), but physics should be factored in once in a while, IMHO. I think the reason why Jedi use Lightsabers, aside from being hard to construct & wield, is that the blade is pure energy(/force?) bouncing back and forth in an array. Simple to sense, if trained properly. As for a thrown weapon, how would the energy factor into the weight? Chew on that.... Thanx for your time....

Admiral_Atredies
26 September 2002, 01:57 PM
Yeah, Beleive me, I could debate for DAYS on the philosiphies of the Jedi, but I think i'll just post my reply. :D

There is always the lightglave, but how about a lightstaff? The ancient Force-imbuned weapon that could function both as a quaerterstaff and a lightsaber. I supose that it could be considered as a Force-imbuned weapon, but not many Jedi have That many levels of FA to get this special quality. Any suggestions on how to run this kind of weapon?

Dr_Worm
26 September 2002, 02:06 PM
I am currently playing a character that is a "failed jedi" and because of failures in the past has vowed never to use a lightsaber again (yes I know fear is a tool of the darkside...trust me he has some issues). However he knows that he may have to defend against them so he has creted a modified Forcepike. The blaid end is normal but the rest, save a two handed handle in the middle, is sourounded by an enregy field. The energy field can only stun, but it also can deflct lightsabers and (if he had the abbility) blaster bolts. This works out for him as he is a Sector Ranger who strongly believes in returning criminals alive for trial.

Corax
14 October 2002, 01:26 PM
Can I point out that weapons are tools? Yes, they are tools for destruction, but a tool is no more or less evil than any other object.

A light staff might be twice as deadly as a normal lightsaber, but it is still a tool. You might also notice that Count Dooku has a Light-Scimitar, but it is really only a stylistic difference. I think the real question is do Jedi wish to use the weapon?

You will also notice that Darth Maul initially ignites only 1 of the blades on his staff when fighting Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan, so there is an element of treachery involved in the weapon too, but it mostly relies on the wielder of the weapon.

General Failure
14 October 2002, 11:59 PM
Yes, a weapon is a tool, no more evil or good than the person using it. And it you're going to use a tool, you want the best one you can find, which for a fully trained Jedi would be a lightsaber. A double bladed lightsaber isn't evil, it's just much harder to master, for an advantage that is at best arguable. There is no rule that says a Jedi has to use a lightsaber, or that they can't use another weapon should they so choose, but when combined with it's place in training and tradition, most Jedi would choose it given the alternatives.

Greystar
4 March 2003, 11:31 PM
In my game I have a character who is typically not a jedi. They have a favored weapon of Scimitar. This characters Master was a Keldor who believed in Tradition above all else so made sure that the Character learned how to use one of his Species Favored weapons before he learned the lightsabre. In doing so he didnt get the Lightsabre feat automaticaly he had to "Purchase" it with his bonus firstlevel feat. Anywayz. In my campaign a Jedi Can use any weapon they choose, but Lightsabres are the only ones that can be used to defend against things such as blasters. And we are playing PRE-PM. Just my $.02

Trigger
6 March 2003, 01:02 AM
Theres been enough philosophy thrown around, so I wont add my two cents in. I will, however, share my views on non-traditional weapons.

first, watch AOTC, and pay attention to the battle of Geonosis. There are at least three jedi weilding two lightsabers. This shows that the council did approve of using two sabers. as for a DBL, it depends on the purpose of the two blades. If they are for defense, then its ok, but the second you counter strike with the second blade, then you just opened up a preverbial can of worms.

as to non traditional weapons, such as axes, knives, and so forth (btw, the idea of light knives has been floating around in my head for years, but i never used them because of the issues brought up here), I like the idea of variety. one reason the Jedi failed at the end of the old republic, yes I say FAILED, was because they became too stagnant and rigid.

my sensei's sensei said it many times: "Change for the sake of change is non-productive. Change because it is necessary is growth. that which refuses to grow shall surely die."

the jedi became so set in their ways that they failed to grow. the idea of going against the "tradition" of a lightsaber shows personal growth, something that is desperately needed in all people. I personally would encourage Force using characters to develop non-traditional weapons to supplement their lightsaber training.

ok, i think im done. im going to go lay down. all this thinking is bad for my health.

Darth Fury
7 March 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Krad-edis
I agree with whoever it was who said "it all depends on the period you are playing in". A Jedi on most missions would only need a lightsaber, and in the hands of a master, it is lethal enough if need be.
I agree with this also and I'm pretty-sure that I read in one of the d20 books, that during the hyperspace wars most Jedi began using either a DBL or two sinlge sabers simultaniously (say that 5 times fast :P ) after a few run ins with thier Sith bretheren, but shortly after the war the council decided that such a weapon was only desinged to destroy first and protect second!!

Ardent
7 March 2003, 06:37 PM
I'm pretty flexible with Jedi and weapons. Ours have used everything from bows & arrows to force pikes. I don't see any reason a Jedi can't carry another weapon if they're comfortable with it and circumstances are appropriate. I know most Jedi won't part with their lightsabers for anything...not even a security checkpoint. Although ours will disarm down to their lightweapons (the Ewok battlemaster has a lightspear instead of a lightsaber).