Lightside Jedi with doublebladed lightsabers, yes or no?

Well let's look at it this way. The first double bladed saber we see officially is Darth Maul in the movie (barring the comic books or old obscure book manuscripts). Thus everything about double bladed sabers that the RPG is basing its knowledge and background information on comes from Darth Maul which is why it's supposedly invented by the Sith and only a darkside weapon. However, I prefer to think of it as a quarterstaff. How many good mages walk around with a quarterstaff?
Anyway, a weapon is just a weapon, it's nature is determined by the wielder. People would say a gun is purely offensive, and when fired, it'd be hard to argue that. But a police officer pointing (not shooting) his gun at a criminal on "COPS" or something may be just using it as a deterrant or as a defensive gesture or threat. Thus, a threat of defense can be offensive. Thus, do you give your jedi dark side points when they make threats in order to forestall violence? I'm guessing probably not, but shouldn't we do so from the purely philosophical standpoint?
To me, the double bladed lightsaber is neutral. The wielder is not. Thus, it comes down to what's done with the weapon as always. Otherwise, why should jedi even carry any weapon at all if weapons (by the philosophy of their vary name) are offensive and thus of the darkside?
To say a jedi can't figure out how to construct variations of lightsabers is absurd and thus such modifications as two blades should not rest primarily in the realm of the sith.
In conclusion, whenever we look at the issue from a standpoint of pure philosophy, the issue will fail to hold up to any number of bizarre situations that may be possible in real life. Philosophy operates from assumptions frequently....life assumes nothing. Therefore I say, double bladed lightsaber for a lightside jedi: OK.
(Just don't expect to get one too easily in any game I host.)

 

I read somewhere that a double ended lightstaff was used by the Jedi for training. It is not Sith affiliated but they find it a far more effective way of killing.

 

Jedi have no problem with dual-phase weapons, which to me seems like an even more offensive modification to the lightsaber. And as seen in the Approaching Storm, Jedi don't seem to have a problem carving through mobs of violent thugs who have no chance of stopping them.

 

Way I see it is this:

Lucas has said many-a-time that the only things that are canon are his movies. Period. That is it. End of story.

From what I have seen, the double-bladed lightsaber kind of took Obi-Wan & Qui-Gon by surprise a bit. Just my opinion, though.

Going on that opinion, the Jedi didn't know much if anything about that double-bladed saber, and I would look to the Darkside Sourcebook for their refernce on the matter.

Where I disagree with awarding DSP to a Jedi wielder of a double-bladed lightsaber is this: if the Jedi uses it for defense ONLY, great for him/her. Every time he/she uses it in an offensive action, mark down a DSP. Actually aggression while using the thing is what racks DSP's in my humble and not-so-Star-Wars-fanatical opinion. Clicking the thing on doesn't in and of itself constitute an aggressive or offensive act.

*shrugs*

Maj-Odo Taji

 

I would say that a lightsaber is a lightsaber is a lightsaber. In any form it is an effective killing tool. A two bladed weapon doesn't imply aggressiveness, just efficiency. this could be interpreted as efficient killing or efficient defense. or both. either way, I dont see it as anything other then a tool to be used. In general I dont think tools like this posess an inherent evil, although a Jedi may be tempted more so to do evil acts with it.
I would never deny my characters its use, but to build it may be a quest in and of itself. I would never limit its use a sI wouldnt limit the use of two weapons by a Jedi.
I think the idea that it is a dark jedi thing is just extrapolated from TPM. I have a book, a technical guide of some sort, cant remember offhand the title, bit it is hardcover, thin, white. Anyway, it mentions the doublebladed lightsaber as a training tool.

 

If I pick up a gun, I can use it effevtively as a blunt weapon. It has a different level of effectiveness if I pull the trigger. That level is defined by what I've chosen as a target. My intent, not the weapon's, determines results. If the temptation of any weapon is greater than the resolve of the person being tempted, than abuses of the weapon will result.

The double-blade inherently evil? Very few would argue Yes. Would it provide greater chance for wanton violence if misused? Equally few would argue No.

Maul's skill should not be underestimated. If he had finished Obi-Wan with the same tenacity with which he fought (instead of the patented 'bad guy mocking' pose) the stoy's end would be very different. Maul, however, had clearly trained to be as lethal as he could by whatever means or weapons available.

In a game, both players and GM should probably decide what is best for the game...what will be most fun. Bad GMs or bad players lead to rotten gaming. Judge your players, their intentions,(make them lobby for a reason to reverse 'the code'), and what will be the most fun for ALL of YOU.

 

If I pick up a gun, I can use it effevtively as a blunt weapon. It has a different level of effectiveness if I pull the trigger. That level is defined by what I've chosen as a target. My intent, not the weapon's, determines results. If the temptation of any weapon is greater than the resolve of the person being tempted, than abuses of the weapon will result.

The double-blade inherently evil? Very few would argue Yes. Would it provide greater chance for wanton violence if misused? Equally few would argue No.

Maul's skill should not be underestimated. If he had finished Obi-Wan with the same tenacity with which he fought (instead of the patented 'bad guy mocking' pose) the stoy's end would be very different. Maul, however, had clearly trained to be as lethal as he could by whatever means or weapons available.

In a game, both players and GM should probably decide what is best for the game...what will be most fun. Bad GMs or bad players lead to rotten gaming. Judge your players, their intentions,(make them lobby for a reason to reverse 'the code'), and what will be the most fun for ALL of YOU.

 

If I pick up a gun, I can use it effevtively as a blunt weapon. It has a different level of effectiveness if I pull the trigger. That level is defined by what I've chosen as a target. My intent, not the weapon's, determines results. If the temptation of any weapon is greater than the resolve of the person being tempted, than abuses of the weapon will result.

The double-blade inherently evil? Very few would argue Yes. Would it provide greater chance for wanton violence if misused? Equally few would argue No.

Maul's skill should not be underestimated. If he had finished Obi-Wan with the same tenacity with which he fought (instead of the patented 'bad guy mocking' pose) the stoy's end would be very different. Maul, however, had clearly trained to be as lethal as he could by whatever means or weapons available.

In a game, both players and GM should probably decide what is best for the game...what will be most fun. Bad GMs or bad players lead to rotten gaming. Judge your players, their intentions,(make them lobby for a reason to reverse 'the code'), and what will be the most fun for ALL of YOU.

 

If I pick up a gun, I can use it effevtively as a blunt weapon. It has a different level of effectiveness if I pull the trigger. That level is defined by what I've chosen as a target. My intent, not the weapon's, determines results. If the temptation of any weapon is greater than the resolve of the person being tempted, than abuses of the weapon will result.

The double-blade inherently evil? Very few would argue Yes. Would it provide greater chance for wanton violence if misused? Equally few would argue No.

Maul's skill should not be underestimated. If he had finished Obi-Wan with the same tenacity with which he fought (instead of the patented 'bad guy mocking' pose) the stoy's end would be very different. Maul, however, had clearly trained to be as lethal as he could by whatever means or weapons available.

In a game, both players and GM should probably decide what is best for the game...what will be most fun. Bad GMs or bad players lead to rotten gaming. Judge your players, their intentions,(make them lobby for a reason to reverse 'the code'), and what will be the most fun for ALL of YOU.

 

Easy there Tuebor, I think we got it the first time...j/k

 

Lighten up on the post button there, pardner

 

Now that's some serious posting.
Another reason that the Jedi may frown apon the use of these weapons is that they lend themselves to an aggressive fighting style. As we know, agression is the path to the Dark Side; by prohibiting these weapons, the Jedi protect themselves from an easy avenue of corruption.

 

I'd like everyone to examine the usage of my campaign and the usage of a Double Bladed Lightsaber in this respect.

In our Campaign Exar Kun's ghost which is not causally destroyed on the Fourth Moon of Yavin but merely imprisioned before it returns again has returned.

Severely overmatched the Jedi Knight studies Exar Kun's moves with the weapon and creates a duplicate to do battle with him and overcome him by adopting his style yet turning it to defense and eventual defeat of said opponent.

Realistically speaking everyone is saying a Double bladed Lightsaber is a more effective tool of killing...this is very true and everyone who says otherwiseis wrong.

However now here's the question. Awarding yourself a DP for using a gaitlin gun, grenades, or yes even turbolasers to blast onroaching armies which are about to invade Hoth?

I think a double bladed lightsaber can be created effectively but for a Jedi to properly transfer his life energy through such a weapon he'd need to research it properly and also other means of creating such than Sith magic which attunes one to aggression.

Since Tales of the Jedi's companion describes usage of two blades I'm inclined to believe it's not inherently evil

 

Lightside Jedi only use a double bladed saber to train. Or so I've been told. Exar Kun had one, and I don't think he had it after he became dark. That's like saying a red lightsaber is for darkside users.

 

There is no need to start handing out the DSPs just because someone uses the weapon, but the GM should find a way to tempt the user into acting out of haste and agression, due to the nature of the weapon.

 

I think the main objection is that it's unfair. The Dark Side is already tempting enough as it is so why make it so often automatic

 

I think the lightsaber should be used for whatever reason that character needs it and i dont beleive it has anything to do with being dark, i agree with the person who sed thats like saying that light jedis cant use a red lightsaber because its red.

 

This is from SWRPGNetwork, supposedly adapted as a d20 prestige class from the Tales of the Jedi companion.

"During the days of the great wars with the Sith, the Jedi were relied upon for protection by the citizens of the galaxy more than ever before. The Jedi were the only true match for the Sith, and their battles were hard-fought and had devastating aftermaths. At the worst times during these wars, some Jedi began training specifically to act as combat leaders and warriors.

While all Jedi are trained in the lightsaber, the Jedi Battlemasters made using the deadly blades an art form. They trained long and hard and eventually became some of the most revered fighters in the entire galaxy. The Battlemasters were a unique group who trained their Padawans not only the art of lightsaber dueling, but also how to wield two lightsabers simultaneously. They became deadly and precise with their blades, and some of their attack styles and defense patterns eventually became integrated into standard lightsaber combat training.

The Battlemaster was to be found wherever a powerful force for the dark side is harming innocents. Like all Jedi, the Battlemaster saw combat as a last resort, but unlike the others he was more prepared to do battle than others. Battlemasters made excellent military commanders, front-line soldiers, and special operations team members. Some Battlemasters were focused on brute force and head-on attack styles; others preferred more subtle maneuvering before making a surprise assault. The Battlemaster was calm and collected in combat, never letting his emotions override his rational thinking. Battlemasters attacked with precision and confidence, and always knew exactly when to fight, where, and when to stop. A Battlemaster did not seek out combat, but rather prepared themselves to be the best when it came time to take up arms in the defense of the light side."

I don't think there would be a problem with one of these Jedi using a double-bladed. I just wish the NJO Jedi would get off their pedestals and discover this tradition, rather than Yoda's "sit on your ass for 20 years and wait to pass the job on to somebody else" method of fighting great evil.

 

"Adventure. Heh! Excitement. Heh! A Jedi craves not these things." -Yoda

 

True, craving adventure and excitement is not what a Jedi is about. But sometimes you can't avoid a fight, and your only option other than surrender is to stop your enemy in his tracks and eliminate him as a threat to others. Jedi do believe in duty, and in protecting the innocent, even if it means fighting.

 

"True, craving adventure and excitement is not what a Jedi is about. But sometimes you can't avoid a fight, and your only option other than surrender is to stop your enemy in his tracks and eliminate him as a threat to others. Jedi do believe in duty, and in protecting the innocent, even if it means fighting."



I almost agree with everything you just said... Jedi don't always have to either surrender or stop/eliminate them, though. The goal of a Jedi, in my humble opinion, is to try and convert those who are committing evil acts back to the Light Side.

Did Luke just go and try to smack the ***** out of Vader? No, he tried to convert him back because he knew there was still good left in him. And if there is still good in Vader, that evil son of a bitch, there is good left in anyone.

Maj-Odo Taji

P.S.- Okay, maybe no good left in the Emperor, but one person in an entire Galaxy?

 

True but if Luke had killed Vader in order to prevent him from FURTHER evil actions instead of his own betrayal at his father's horrofic villainy...

Well the Emperor would have killed Jimmy Sr. stat but that's beside the point.

Isn't it?

 

Fingofin is right; work out a way to tempt them. At the end of the day, you can't punish people for anything but their actions as a PC.

Ender

 

yup i agree

 

All I have to say is that Jedi do have Double blade lightsabers but only for training. However it still should be available to them . Just a little harder to make.