Boothand

Maybe something like a 'health bar' for your saber defence that restores 'health' at a set speed. The higher your force level, the faster the regeneration. When you block too many bullets and it's below 0, you get hit.

Though I kind of like it when you just have to aim really well to block bullets. Like the bar fight in Nar Shaddaa in Jedi Outcast, you're surrounded and have to act really quickly and aim your saber. Maybe the difficulty level (Padawan - Jedi master) could increase and decrease the threshold needed for blocking the shot. I guess some levels could be too easy though if everyone is in front, but most of the JK2 levels are pretty challenging and spread the enemies around.

I mean, given that Peter Cushing is long dead, I see no reason why there would be a hate fandom. Replacing Sebastian Shaw with young Anakin was just rude, weird and unnecessary, since they had the original footage.

I guess if they find no one that could be made to kind of resemble Tarkin, I understand their choice, but I found it weird and could immediately tell it was CGI.

I thought Tarkin looked very CGI, I'd have preferred a real actor, I think.

Wasn't too impressed with the movie overall, I liked TFA better of the two. Lots of cliches. But, many entertaining scenes, at least. Loved the robot!

If you (in edit mode) select everything and press CTRL N, does it look better? CTRL N is 'Make normals consistent', and usually solves issues with inverted faces etc. If the tags are flipped, that might need fixing of its own though, not sure.

The role of the Gray Jedi Knight is to keep to the balance between the Light and the Dark Side, ultimately succumbing to neither. We exist to help keep this dynamic balance in the Force flowing because we understand that life is at its most fruitful, and at its best when there is Light and there is Darkness -- for all creatures of the universe. We don't recognise an ultimate good on either side of the Jedi-Sith, Light and Dark Side war.

You recognize the extreme light and dark ideals as something bad. You believe it's good when the two are in conflict. Not a middleway between them, but an overall universal conflict. You don't recognize a good on either side. But if you don't then recognize a bad one, you wouldn't need to stray away from either.

You try to be impartial by saying you don't belong to either, but in fact you recognize them both to be bad (on their own). Either you are impartial (no opinion on which scale the balance tips), or you believe there is something good and bad. Might not be a universal good or bad, but something good or bad in common for all who consider themselves protectors of the balance of the force.

The topic's question is "What does it mean to be a great Jedi?", not why would one be a Gray Jedi.

 

Please note that this is not a topic about me, personally, altough I do believe I've explained in detail my personal point of view, and attraction to the Gray Jedi way

By answering why you would do the things a gray Jedi is supposed to do, you do answer what your opinion is on being a great Jedi (since you chose gray Jedi as your preferred path).

The reason I'm going on with this is because there is a parallel between the real world and the Star Wars world, and I'm concerned about some of the things you say, and how your beliefs would reflect upon Earth.

There is no point in trying to discredit me, @Boothand, @Ping, as what I've said I've based on direct evidence and my personal interpretation from official dialogues in the Star Wars sources we have about Gray Jedi. You are free to have your own point of views on this topic, but please don't claim that my own are invalid. It would be nice if you could back up your views with source evidence as well (so I'm not the only one)...

Interesting that you see it that way. What's the direct evidence proving that the abundant amount of (non-violent) conflicts in society are not enough to keep up progress?

The Star Wars dialogues help describe what a gray Jedi is, but not why there is a need to create conflicts out of nothing.

Please point out a country, culture, society that is currently growing stale.

1. This is right. Every individual is responsible for their own action, and the effects of their own actions (which are neither "good" nor "bad" in the ultimate sense, but a mixture of both).

2. Every Jedi feels the flow of the Force, and every Gray Jedi is aware of the balance between the Dark and the Light Side. What they do with that knowledge is at their own discretion.

3. None of your efforts will make the scale topple over. The state of the scale affects your life as it pertains to now, and your future. Whether a Gray Jedi chooses to help change the current state, or is content to hide away and exclude themselves from the current state of the galaxy, nature will not crumble, and things will balance themselves out eventually. The only thing that is truly affected by our actions are our own lives. Good will never triumph over evil, and evil will never triumph over good, truly. They are essential to humanity, and unseparably connected to one another.

4. If the proper Jedi way defines the state of the galaxy, I believe people will suffer just as much as if the Sith way were defining the state, yes. We haven't seen too many examples of this in Star Wars so far -- the focus has been on evil (from the Jedi Order's perspective) coming out triumphant, and stopping it from doing so. However, you can see glimpses of the traditional Jedi ways crumbling when faced with taking a side and getting involved in the happenings of the Clone Wars. The Jedi Council's unwillingness to accept that where there is Light there is Darkness in their actions, and in a person is what makes ultimately the Order weaken and crumble from the inside with the fall of the Chosen One, and their fight against the Dark Side cause suffering to countless Separatist civilians.

5. I was not talking in absolutes -- I'm nor Jedi, nor Sith! A period of peace is valuable often, but conflict (not necessarily the most extreme form of it, war) is just as valuable.

6. I have never said that Gray Jedi are necessary for anything. No individual living creature is necessary to the Force, but we are all a part of it. I was merely explaining what a Gray Jedi may choose to do to try and influence the state of the galaxy, at their discretion, because you've asked me, specifically.

7. Making an impact on another culture as an outsider, without knowing or respecting that culture is wrong, yes. I do believe this. Do not do unto others what you would not have done to you. And if you do so, do not expect that it will not come back to bite you in the ass.

1. So, a mixture of both. So light = good, and dark = bad. What's good about the light side, and what is bad about the dark? Not interested to hear about what's 'too extreme' in the Jedi code, but interested to hear about what you think is 'good'.

3. Same as 1, what are the essential good and evil components of humanity like? Wy should someone strive to be equally good and evil, instead of strive to be good and fight their own evil? If too much good is in fact not good, then good isn't truly good. If good = a mixture of good and bad, then the good end of the scale must be something different than good, same for bad.

4. IF the Jedi become this extreme, sure! Just note that this would arguably make both Jedi and Sith evil, and good could not be associated with Jedi.

5. Again (if you haven't already answered it above), which real world place could use some conflict because it (at some point currently or in history) was too good? Did someone cause conflict in those countries out of impartial reasons to restore balance, or was it political reasons?

You don't know this. Just because it hasn't happened in a drastic way so far doesn't mean it never will... If the Sith Order and the Dark Side users were vanquished, it might very well happen.

Let's wait until it does happen, though!

We recognise that a galaxy dominated by the Sith would be out of balance, but why do most of us not see the same for the Jedi? Is their Code any less extreme in its definition? Are their people any less flawed? These are questions I would put to you as a Gray Jedi.

The Jedi or Sith code in themselves aren't extreme, but extreme people will do extreme things based on them. The political leadership of some place isn't the same as the values held by the people. If the Jedi or the Sith made it their business to restrict people's lives to the extent you describe, they are both evil.

Ideally, for me, the Jedi code would be a personal spirtual quest, not something that belongs in political leadership. But if Darth Vader wants to rule the galaxy and starts blowing up planets like Alderaan, it seems reasonable to let the Jedi go and chop his hand off, maybe help the rebellion blow up a death star or two, and I think the Jedi code can help them during such conflicts, as individuals.

Peace is not desirable in a world where everything is stale, and there is very little progress. Where people grow bored of not being challenged.

(Again, if not already answered) Which world is that? Are we not challenging each other right now? This is an example of progressing (and this happens everywhere). By happiness, I don't mean that there are no issues that force us to progress, or that the ruling political party in my country is the best.

Does that sound like a righteous Jedi to you? One who tags along to see the outcome that impacts the fate of the galaxy, whether that end pushes things towards the Light or the Dark Side? Whether it causes casualties and suffering for millions? Does that sound like something that the Jedi Order would approve of?

I don't think the question is so much 'what is a gray Jedi?', so much as it is 'why would you be a gray Jedi?'.

If it is as Ping describes and the second Wookieepedia definition describes, it's someone working to restore peace/justice/harmony outside the ways of the Jedi code. This is reasonable, to me at least.

But what I get from you is very mixed:

1. Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, all a matter of perspective, no universal truth - you are justified to do any action on your own accord, no code to guide you.

2. Every gray Jedi cares about the state of the world and should or will take actions to make it right.

3. None of your efforts matter in the great scale, it will balance out.

4. If Jedi are in control, society will eventually grow stale - an example you gave of this was Jedi suppressing people, forcing the code upon regular people, making people unhappy.

5. If things are overly good (or peaceful), society will grow stale (even if Jedi are not in control), so you should do something to disrupt the peace (and from this, we can conclude that making progress is good or desirable).

6. Gray Jedi are necessary in order to free societies or cultures from oppression (rebellion would not play a more important part, at least you haven't addressed it any of the times I brought it up).

7. Making impact on another culture than your own is disrespectful and bad, you have no right.

Before you bring new pastes from expanded universe and things to help define what a gray Jedi is (if that feels important), we must clean up these arguments, because I can't see the overall connection between this at least.

Some reminders about my stance here, since you haven't responded to a lot of it, so we don't go in loops:

-The Jedi code isn't perfect, but it's not likely to be projected unto 'the people'.

-Jedi Hitler is bad, nobody supports this. Yes, go ahead with Darth Maul and force them out of action (then make democracy).

-Don't make conflicts if there is happiness. Peace does not equal lack of progress.

As for what @@Boothand wrote, I will defend the gray jedi against the following:

 

 

It is obvious to me (contra @@Cerez) that the balance is something the gray jedi think is good/right and should be promoted, achieved and maintained, while imbalance is bad/evil and should be avoided, shunned and mended. It is therefore right to do something to restore or maintain the balance and wrong to do the opposite. Having said that, if there is imbalance at any point in time, the world might be such that balance will be eventually restored, but (!) gray jedi can speed up the process. You don't really need gray jedi to do anything, but if they do act, then balance will be restored sooner than later, which is better in the overall scheme of things.

I can understand that purpose, for the gray Jedi, and it sounds reasonable on its own. But the way they define balance, judging by the way it was described by Cerez, feels unlogical to me. So, I guess we would need to clearly define what 'balance' means.

Is it an equal (for simplicity's sake) amount of 'good' and 'bad' (as in peace vs war/conflict), or is it the ideal of finding the golden middleway between extreme light and extreme dark, and making sure any place isn't consumed by either (which would result in ridding the world of bad - tyranny, oppression etc)? Or something else?

The former feels very artificial to me.

(..) let's look to the source material, then:

 [snip]

 

I'm sure you can read between the lines, but his final response talks to this, answering your question pretty much directly. The is no "right" and "wrong", there just "is".

That's not what I read into that quote at all. How does it suggest that there is no right and wrong? He basically says that the right thing to do now is stopping the tyrant Malak, though questioning the greater picture importance of the war, as things will balance out eventually. But as I'll repeat below, life is more than the greater picture of the world.

The actions of people and their views are ultimately insignificant to the balance of the Force (in the Gray Jedi perspective).

So, the actions of gray Jedi (people) and their views are insignificant to the balance of the force too? If the force has a natural balance, wouldn't it be, for a gray Jedi, the most unnatural thing to try to actively change that balance? If the world (or some place) is at some point 'overly good' (in lack of a better description), wouldn't it according to the quote you pasted be insignificant in the greater picture, as it wouldn't stay that way forever, and thus be insignificant to try to change that? If there's a natural balance, it would come about on its own, you wouldn't need gray Jedi to justify violence by saying it serves to balance out the force.

Not saying I agree about the dynamics of things balancing out one way or the other, but I found those points problematic with what you said above.

Is there a universal right and wrong in the many faces of the natural world? Do you need to know that something is "right" in order to feel if it is part of the natural balance? Can you be an individual, living and acting independently, and still be part of a larger whole? Does being right or wrong ultimately mean anything on the great scale?

1. There is arguably no universal right or wrong (can skip a metaphysical discussion here), but this acknowledgement means nothing to us, because we all have compassion, we understand others through our understanding of ourself. We're able to make the conclusion that what hurts ourselves hurts someone else too, and that causing others pain is unnecessary unless you're in a desperate situation. This is where we as humans can start to recognize 'good' and 'bad', or more objectively 'preferable' and 'unpreferable' (can skip a discussion on altruism too, unless you're very eager to talk about good/bad in that sense). I'll skip forward a bit and conclude that saving lives, sparing a majority from pain is ethically 'right'.

2. At this point I become more unsure what you really mean about 'natural balance'.

3 & 4. So if I understand correctly, you argue that good/bad actions are insignificant in the great scale and thus lose their meaning (and thus their importance) in the great scale as well. Can you not think of things throughout history that made a great picture change through individuals' efforts (based on what is right/wrong), whether they started on their own or combined their efforts? Not sure where you're going with this, but even if your actions never could impact the great picture (which I don't grant), the great picture isn't the only thing that matters. Someone's life may be just a frame in the infinite timeline, but to discredit their actions, morals, opinions or feelings as something without meaning for the sake of the greater (infinite) timeline is an argument for what? I could turn it around and say 'does the greater timeline mean anything in the scale of a human life?'

Being right or wrong means something to us as humans, and the meaning we get out of it while we live is as important as the meaning it has from any other perspective (such as the perspective from the great scale). As you pointed out, it's about perspective, and that goes in a lot of directions - but due to our common abilities and understanding, most (!) of us can recognize the same basic principles about 'good' and 'bad'.

Naturally, I recognise that saving human lives is important, but what you are saying here is that as an outsider one has the right to intervene in people's lives and impose control over their lives, which I do not agree with in the least. This shows a lack of respect for the people and their ways, and has nothing to do with their casualties -- the two are mutually exclusive. If a people choose to die for a cause, they have the right to do with their own(!) lives what they will. No outsider has the right to intervene in their lives and choices.

 

How would you feel if your culture and traditions were invaded by a foreign power who perceives them to be wrong?

Okay, so I took some steps back so we could do the basics first, but I think you're misunderstanding me.

My logic:

1. I can save more than 1000 lives of non-participating people by stopping a war. This is good, I should stop it. I sneak in at night and switch out all their guns with bananas.

2. They find new guns the day after, also the banana industry grows inbalanced and marks the start of the Big Bloody Banana Revolution of the century. Country/City #1 loses the conflict, and it cost them 3000 soldiers, 1000 pregnant women and men, 1000 wild animals, 4 scientists and one small time criminal bantha herder as well as their cultural treasures peed on by the Country/City #2. This is bad, I should do something else.

3 A. I talk to General Gerderberg, I give him a speech inspired by Rocky, get him on a conference call with General Hatemanship, and they agree to take it easy after persuasive arguments. This is good.

3 B. I talk to General Gerderberg. He has already seen Rocky, and he can't appreciate conference calls, he needs to look his opponent in the eye as he rejects my peace attempts with a horde of pitchfork wielding toddlers riding on slaves. I ignite my righteous lightsaber and spare their lives brutally with a relaxing, mysterious provision of mother's milk. I call in my backup and we arrogantly take over. 3 of our men mistake their cultural treasures for public toilets, but we make peace with City/Country #2. The people hate us and spend the next 5 years planning and going through with a revolution to put a new leader of their own choosing on board. This is... arguably better than the devastating war.

Now, don't get me wrong:

I don't 'approve' of needlessly intervening. I'm saying that you have the 'right' as a fellow human being to be a part of the world, and if you can prevent great injustices, save lives, I believe there is a way to go about that, without arrogantly 'imposing' yourself on another culture with your own views. A country or culture separate from others can't just make up its own horrible rules in an enclosed bubble and automatically be safe from outside judgement and intervenance. You can live in a separate culture, but you can't separate from humanity.

In this instance, let's take that the current government (not democratic) was enforcing laws that did not allow for expression of emotions or attachments, for example. Where people were monitored night and day, and any show of passion or emotion would potentially label one as a criminal against the system with a potential for violence.

 

This would be a Jedi ideals influenced totalitaristic form of government. The Jedi may not be directly involved in the happenings, but by their Code nothing would be wrong, and nothing could be changed -- and their sole presence and authority would strengthen this regime.

 

A situation like that would call of Sith ideals to be introduced to the populace, and a little uprising to stir things up a bit, and bring life back into the lives of these people.

I agree that the above case would be abusive and wrong (hey, suddenly we're talking about taking actions against things that are perceived as wrong! Just a note for the first part of this post). The case you're presenting is basically Jedi Hitler, where the Jedi code suddenly gets seen as a recipe that every individual (not just Jedi) had to follow and fit, and the people get convinced and brainwashed into welcoming it (otherwise eliminated/hurt as you suggested). I simply don't agree that the Jedi code is intended for this purpose, like some of us have suggested earlier, nor that the Jedi are or would become that extreme even if they were to follow it to every extent.

If they were, I believe rebellion would solve it over time, not galactic wars (you might not even suggest that, in this case, I'm not sure).

But to get to the main point of how I see flaw in your logic: You want to remove the suppressing Jedi, but at this point, you have already recognized them to be 'bad' (your description of the extreme Jedi ways) and therefore they should be replaced by something that would, in your perspective, be considered more beneficial, or good (even if that meant involving 'bad guys' to achieve greater justice).

Bottom line: You, as a gray Jedi, through the above provided example, are working towards balancing out things you think are 'bad' with things you think are 'good'. Balance, for you, is also more of the good, but you're afraid of an extreme interpretation of values held by those we consider 'good', and that the values would lead to something bad.

Now, the most important part (to me): Let's pretend we're not talking about Jedi Hitler, but about the real world. There is a lasting peace in a lot of countries in today's world. Do you agree that there is meaningful progress in these countries, and that new violent conflicts are not necessary? This is, I think, the distinction we need to make in order not to misunderstand each other.

Bottom side note: Happy Christmas! And yes, I started writing this reply before Ping submitted his

What I sometimes do or try is remove all saturation from the normal map, then use it as you would an ambient occlusion map.

Everything in (human) life is a matter of perspective. No-one can claim that their own perspective is above others in worth/value. To do so is to shut your eyes to the world of others, and to blindly follow your own views. What is "right" and what is "wrong" are subjective to your acquired values and up-bringing. There are only a handful of basic, primitive morals that all people of the world can agree on -- such as if you treat someone else with no respect, don't expect to be treated with respect in return. These are more in tune with human nature itself, and our natural behaviour.

 

To claim that someone's well-established tradition, or culture is wrong because one perceives it so from their own, "rational" perspective, and to act upon that to attempt to change their culture as an outsider, at least in my honest opinion, is ignorant and arrogant behaviour. It shows no respect to others' views and experiences (perspectives).

I'm not suggesting that the Jedi, or anyone, has a world-given right to interfere with just anything and step all over cultural treasures, or to be more specific.. force all women in a city to stop wearing clothing designed to hide their skin, for example. Yes, this could lead to conflicts, wars if you take it far enough.

But! Think about all the collateral damage and innocent deaths that come from war. Even if the soldiers were somehow 100% willing and not-brainwashed to carry out the will of military leaders (in which case you could say their deaths would be entirely of their own choosing, but this is rarely the case or this simple), you would as a bystander and outsider have to accept that lots of innocent people would suffer. I do not 'accept' this, and would rather support someone coming in to help resolve or put the conflict to a halt.

This is not arrogantly imposing your views, it's protecting innocent people like yourself, people you recognize to have the will to live and be free from pain.

This is something I hope would go pretty much without saying, and if we can agree on this (saving the lives of innocent people and also soldiers is good), then we can continue - in which case you must specify more clearly where you disagree with what I've said.

If I felt that the people of a city were getting stale, and unhappy in their status quo, I would assist a rebel organisation in rising to power, and overthrowing the current leadership, for instance, so that the dynamic nature of the Force would flow again, and, ultimately, life would return to the people.

Why are the people unhappy? What specifically are we talking about? What kind of thing are the Jedi blindly suppressing that a whole city cannot seek to change through democratic processes (feel free to include examples from real life)?

It is wrong to pretend to know what is right for others. You cannot know what is right for a person or a people without having lived with them, and gained an inner perspective on their lives. Even then, it is best to ask and to be respectful of their ways.

 

Tradition usually stems from practical common sense, and therefore in most cases is useful. It is wrong to judge another people's sense of identity and tradition with your own perspective for the same reason as my point above.

 

To enforce your own culture and view to someone else is not "creating harmony", but being oppressive.

About knowing what is right for one culture - you might not understand their culture, their way of thinking, but you can make rational estimations about the outcome of war and conflict, and their alternatives, like Ping just did.

As for the Jedi 'forcing' peace between two tribes, I don't see how this discussion helps resolve whether it's 'right' to be a gray Jedi, and the part about forcing your views and own culture upon them becomes a little niche in this scope, but even so:

If the Jedi are wrong to make peace between someone from another culture, how can it be right for a 'gray Jedi' to act in someone else's culture on behalf of balance in the force?

Follow-up question: If you see two 6 year old kids in China (or any culture different to our own) fighting to the death, one with a pitchfork and a buckler, another with a battering ram and riding on a slave, would you try to stop the fight?

As for tradition usually coming from common sense - I disagree very much, but won't go on about it since that's an entirely different ethical discussion.

To help us get on the same page about what we're talking about here, could you provide a specific example of something you (personally) would be willing to do (as a gray Jedi) in order to create conflict and war in a peaceful successful society?

The Jedi can co-exist with everyone else. That doesn't tip the scale of the balance. The extreme scenario would be if the Jedi had started either enforcing or inspiring others into following their own Code.

 

If you look at the Jedi Code, one thing becomes glaringly obvious: there is no room for human error, or even essential human traits, and such "trangressions" are rarely tolerated, if at all, in the Order.

• "There is no emotion" they say. But people truly live when they feel.
• "There is no ignorance" they say, yet what would you say is the most defining characteristic of human society? It's simplification, categorisation, and ignorance.
• "There is no passion" they say, yet what are we taught we need to follow in order to be our best? A life without passion would hardly get us anywhere, and a life without love would be a life wasted.
• "There is no chaos" they say, ignorant of the fact that chaos is an essential contrast to harmony, and that nature thrives in both.
• "There is no Death" they say, yet death is an inseparable part of the human condition that gives our lives meaning. We cannot cheat death. Even if our spirits do live on, we are not what we once were -- it is a permanent transformation.

In other words, to live like a Jedi, and live it truly, would mean to not be human. A society inspired by such ideals would stagnate, become stale and lifeless. In such an idealistic society bliss would become a chore because there would be no hard times to compare it to. Peace, and its meaning would ultimately be forgotten. People would lose all ambition, and exist only to exist with the world -- effectively becoming lifeless. The human spirit would die.

 

This, for me, is a very big IF. It's not designed as a thing every living being should strive to follow. It's not like Yoda would go knocking on doors and lecture them about the force and the Jedi code (remember how reluctant he was to even teach Luke?).

To me, the code is more like a warrior's code or meant for those who want to seek a spiritual path, something designed to keep the Jedi unseduced by the dark-side (although I don't agree with everything).

Our society is colored by/inspired by christian values, yet it was used to do horrible things through history. Now we've moved past some limiting traditions such as the forbidden gay marriage. My point is, it's not that black and white. You don't need a Sauron just to make sure an entire generation doesn't decide to become Jedi.

TLDR: Being a Jedi is not for everyone, it's for the few. Even if the Jedi code was like a world religion, society would adapt.

Yes, the Jedi might take things too far, like I said, but it's mostly relevant to the Jedi themselves, not an entire society, or planet. They would be like a bunch of galactic cops with a surprisingly restrictive ruleset on themselves. Whether the rules are good or bad for the Jedi is one discussion, but in the bigger picture, there will be peace and democracy and progress and more good things we have today. Luke Skywalker might be confused about being denied the feelings for his sister, and Anakin would maybe still think the Jedi are evil, but CHEWBACCA will be happy. And C3PO. And Lando's friend who says "Jaha" when they blew up the deathstar. Also Lando. And most people.

Scenario: There is no wars, Jedi are in control. What extremist things do they do that impact society?

Keep in mind, rend2 is not something people are expected to use currently, as it's not finished, but if it does get finished, I'm sure a lot of people would be willing to try it. The renderer can be switched out in runtime as far as I remember, so once it's 'installed', you can easily switch back and forth between rd-vanilla and rd-rend2 for any reason, using console commands (cl_renderer) and a vid_restart.

Normal mapping works in the WIP rend2-renderer that Xycaleth is porting/working on. I'm sure seeing a nicely normal mapped character in JKA would be a good morale boost and motivation!

https://jkhub.org/topic/7468-rend2-a-modern-renderer/

Do you really think an entire civilization would grow stale and apathetic just because the Jedi were in control? Say, for instance, you choose one day not to blow up some planet or murder some dogs, cows or children in order to restore balance - you still have the kind of conflicts that are in a growing, changing society such as ours. Not everyone is a Jedi/monk, and I'm sure, if it was real, the Star Wars world would have plenty of moral and political issues, regardless of galactic wars. If not, and everything was unanimously perfect, that would be severely unrealistic and thus equally less interesting in any discussion about the meaning of conflict or 'unbalance'.

So, no need to go around and seek conflict for the heck of it.

The Jedi might be neglecting their own potential as human beings by blatantly suppressing their humanity, but the idea of helping/supporting the Sith (power-seeking selfish violent killers?) back, for the sake of keeping things interesting, is just that: making things more interesting, because Star Wars is cool when people fight!

 

 

• a mod of Rosh saying everything backwards

 

I think someone has a good start!

I'd start by just opening the code and using CTRL F to search for keywords, try to change simple things, see how things change when you switch out things in the code. Copy, paste, use CTRL F to find all references in the code to certain variables and structures, try to get a feel for how it works, or at least see some similarities.

Try some practical learning, like CodeCademy. Maybe the Java course is a good start, since it will teach you about data types, variables and functions. You won't learn about memory management and pointer magic through Java or C#, but it's a good start if you're new I guess!

I hoped this video would count as me caring about joMME I know 2,3 others who's been messing around with it or wants me to teach them, for what it's worth.

If you're importing GLM, and your project is set up like this: C:/etc/Desktop/models/players/DonaldDuck/model.glm,

set the 'Base Path' to C:/etc/Desktop. That's how I remember it, at least.

For me it works fine as long as there is a base/models/players/_humanoid/_humanoid.gla and base/models/players/someModel/model.glm.

If it's outside your base folder hierarchy, I believe you can make do with only the models/players/etc structure as long as you tell the plugin which folder the 'base' folder would be (relatively).

I'm pretty sure this is not how this 'works'. This is what we have modding for (something you btw can't expect in any potential new EA JK game. This engine is still one of the best for modding!). These games all have some pretty niche gameplay, and the big-time developers are afraid of committing to something like that. You'd have better luck petitioning to the community to make something fan-made, or inspiring some smaller game company, but we all know that usually doesn't make it out the door. Closest thing is probably the MBII in Unreal Engine thing.

Use the .bat file to run it, not the exe directly.

This question is probably better in the jk2mv forum, but - did you use the installed or portable version of JK2mv? The installed version doesn't read mods from or write to the original base folder, it uses the Documents/jk2mv/base folder for this. It will also read from the Program Files/Jk2mv (or wherever you installed jk2mv), but I'd probably suggest having all your mods in the same place at least, so Documents/jk2mv/base is a good place

The question is whether you play multiplayer or singleplayer.

If it's singleplayer, JK2MV can't help.

But if it's multiplayer, you should really get JK2MV. It stands for "multiversion", because it can play 1.04, 1.03 and 1.02. In addition there's tons of security fixes, stability, resolution and more, and also stuff like dynamic glow and as NubSmoo mentioned, you can use JKA models in JK2.

https://jk2mv.org/

There's also a jk2mv section here, if you're playing multiplayer https://jk2.info/index.php