I wouldn't call Palpatine's election legitimate. Well, maybe his election to Supreme Chancellor, but all the votes on adding Emergency Powers and such most definitely were not legit.

He clearly used the Dark Side to influence those votes, or at least make them come up(although blaming Jar-jar is certainly the easy way out) at a time when they'd definitely pass.

I'm of the opinion that the Rebellion was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Opposing the Empire was the right thing, fighting to restore the Republic was the wrong reason.

Creating an entirely new system of government from either the Empire or Republic would have been a better route. People ostensibly made Palpatine Emperor because the Republic was a failed system(a true statement), you could co-opt that sentiment by saying "yes, the Republic had failed. But the Empire is worse. So follow us and we'll give you a third option better than either."

Senator Palpatine: "Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic, and on the payroll of the Trade Federation, I might add. This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will disappear."

Senator Palpatine was absolutely correct in this. Little did the princess know that the Trade Federation was being controlled by Sidious. By this extension. Palpatine already held a large sway with the a good portion of the senate. Enough to have the right amount of people support Amidala's vote of No Confidence, and enough more to get himself elected.

What we don't know (outside of canon) is if he used the Force, money, bribery, or blackmail, to manipulate the individual senators under his control. My guess would be a combination of the last 3. Palpatine had an amazing ability to read people, find their weakness, and exploit it ("Your over confidence is your weakness"). He would know who he could corrupt and how he could not., and he had plenty of time to pick and choose his puppets. Of course that same ability proved to be his undoing. He misjudged Vader (in the end) and Luke.

Count Dooku: "What if I told you that the Republic was now under the control of a dark lord of the Sith?"
Obi-Wan: "No, that's not possible. The Jedi would sense it."
Count Dooku: "The Dark Side has clouded their vision. Hundreds of senators are now under the influence of a Sith lord called Darth Sidious."

I don't think Dooku was literally saying "The guy in charge, the chancellor, yeah he's the Sith you guys are looking for", it's most likely meant "The senate is totally being manipulate by a Sith Lord, you putz."

"plot Luck" had nothing to do with Sidious' rise to power. This is the culmination of work decades in the making. Both in using the Dark Side to cloud the Jedi's judgement and insight, and also in manipulating the senate to facilitate his rise to power. This is Darth Bane's* legacy coming to completion.

*Canon, although to what extend we cannot say.

Hello, as a staunch Imperialist, I must object to this slander of the Emperor. The rumours of the Emperor's fraud are just those, rumours. Few outside of the highest levels of rulership, such as the Galactic Senators, would have any inkling of such fraud, and if they did, why aren't they coming forward with evidence of such crimes? Where, during the thunderous applause mentioned previously, were the Senators 'in the know' about this alleged treachery?

If the Jedi were so innocent, why did the survivors flee? If they had evidence of the Empire's betrayal, surely there were those who might listen, amongst the teeming billions of sentients in the galaxy that still worshipped them as the heroes they might well have been once, before their subterfuge and double-crossing?

This is what is so sickening about the Rebellion. They are so quick to point to conspiracies and fraud as evidence of malfeasance, but when the citizens of the galaxy stand up and say "prove it," they point to shadowed rumours and might-haves as evidence. And for every imagined slight against the citizens of this Empire by the legitimate government, the Empire can surely point to the wanton destruction of Imperial property and the deaths of countless officials, military targets, and, indeed, civilians, as evidence of the so-called Rebellion's own malfeasance.

This war is heinous, yes, but to callously sling barbs and arrows at the legitimate head of government while also dragging the countless innocents into harm's way is surely just as heinous. Or have we forgotten the poor Massassi, whose planet was co-opted to be a military target by the Rebel Alliance, who took over their once proud temples and girded them with plasteel and weapons emplacements. Records show they lived for many thousands of years free of the affairs of galactic politics until those miserable scum pitched camp in their jungles!

A: Because enough of the senate was either benefiting some of his illegal activities, or had no clue about them, and even those who had some idea what he was up too were so badly outnumbered they had no chance of stopping him.

B: Because he had a massive army loyal to him which had already demonstrated a willingness to kill their COs, at least some of whom they were friends with, without a second thought. Standing their ground in those conditions would have been an act of supreme idiocy.

C: Honestly I don't think most of the rebels care about what the Emperor did to gain power. They care about things like the Empire slaughtering their loved ones, destroying their homes, and enslaving their people a lot more than they do how Palpatine gained power.

D: Did you somehow miss the fact that the Massassi were long gone before the Rebels set up the base on Yavin? As in they were dead for thousands of years before that point.

D: Did you somehow miss the fact that the Massassi were long gone before the Rebels set up the base on Yavin? As in they were dead for thousands of years before that point.

But On-Topic, I would think that committing treason in order to gain power might disqualify someone from any actual legitimacy, whether his crimes could be proven or not. I mean, in-setting, people can (and probably do) debate Palpatine's legitimacy, using whatever evidence or supposition they have. But for us omniscient viewers, I would think we have more than enough evidence to say "Palpatine is not a legitimate successor to the Republic, and he is also a huge ****."

Another good example of the Rebel Alliance's criminal behavior, that I only just thought of late today, was their illegal seizure of Kuat Drive Yards and the planet Kuat following the Empire's "defeat" at the Battle of Endor.

Scavenger Squadron's commander stated that the seizure was due to Kuat of Kuat supplying the Imperial Navy, thus claiming that Kuat had a vested political interest in the Empire.

This of course, was absolute nonsense as Kuat of Kuat is no more or less a buisness man. As he himself stated he has no interest in the politics of the universe, only the politics of buisness. Furthermore, Kuat of Kuat stated that he would have gladly supplied the Alliance with vessels, vehicles, droids, etc had they only had the money to purchase his wares.

KDY was far from an exclusive property of the Empire, having sold vessels to politicians, nobles, crime lords, merchants, even bounty hunters (Fett). So the Rebel's claiming that he favored the Empire was utter nonsense. He only did what any buisness man did, sold to whoever would pay regardless of their affiliation. This does not make him Imperial, but totally neutral in every sense of the word.

Sadly, the Republic cared not for the rules of business and attempted to seize the corporation anyways, resulting in the death of Kuat of Kuat (albiet by suicide) and the near loss of the KDY shipyards. Thus removing a brilliant ship engineer from the universe without even due process of law.

This situation would be akin to a poor, low waged worker becoming jealous of a rich neighbor's porche and killing the neighbor so he could steal the car for himself. Or better yet, if he attacked a Porche dealership taking hostages claiming that their criminals for not making their precision crafted, expertly engineered vehicles mass marketable (something totally impossible). The neighbor did nothing wrong, and certainly the dealership didn't do anything wrong, but the poor sob couldn't care less.

Also any of the standard "fare" that comes with resistance forces: killing "collaborators" without trial, assassinations of high ranking officers and personnel (also without trial), etc. torture of Imperial personnel, etc. It's impossible to believe that such things did not occur.

Also any of the standard "fare" that comes with resistance forces: killing "collaborators" without trial, assassinations of high ranking officers and personnel (also without trial), etc. torture of Imperial personnel, etc. It's impossible to believe that such things did not occur.

(Bold mine)

One must be wary when applying "real world" concepts beyond symbolism and metaphor. Not saying you can't do it, it is just that they cease to be foregone conclusions in the same sense.

"Standard 'fare'" applies very differently.

It is not only possible, it is probable that such morally detestable acts did not occur in canon* as the whole system runs on GL's moral whims (with mixed results). Given the evidence, it is not only possible that the Galactic Empire was thwarted with very few (if any compromises) if pressed, GL would probably spin some heroic fluff about how they managed it.

Look no further than "Greedo shot first" to see the lengths he will go to portray even the resident "bad boy hero" in the best possible light. Even if you suspect that GL is trolling us a bit with it all, he still officially holds that line and would be apt to do so with the Rebels as a whole.

*As a side note, I am all for RPG stories that portray a grimmer Rebellion.

Also any of the standard "fare" that comes with resistance forces: killing "collaborators" without trial, assassinations of high ranking officers and personnel (also without trial), etc. torture of Imperial personnel, etc. It's impossible to believe that such things did not occur.

(Bold mine)

One must be wary when applying "real world" concepts beyond symbolism and metaphor. Not saying you can't do it, it is just that they cease to be foregone conclusions in the same sense.

"Standard 'fare'" applies very differently.

It is not only possible, it is probable that such morally detestable acts did not occur in canon* as the whole system runs on GL's moral whims (with mixed results). Given the evidence, it is not only possible that the Galactic Empire was thwarted with very few (if any compromises) if pressed, GL would probably spin some heroic fluff about how they managed it.

Look no further than "Greedo shot first" to see the lengths he will go to portray even the resident "bad boy hero" in the best possible light. Even if you suspect that GL is trolling us a bit with it all, he still officially holds that line and would be apt to do so with the Rebels as a whole.

*As a side note, I am all for RPG stories that portray a grimmer Rebellion.

Read the descriptions of SpecForce Infiltrators. They are specifically recruited for their hatred of the Empire. I can't imagine that these guys play nice at all.

Read the descriptions of SpecForce Infiltrators. They are specifically recruited for their hatred of the Empire. I can't imagine that these guys play nice at all.

"I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit."

Lacking a canon source of the Rebellion "behaving badly", all we have is our imaginations... Which I do encourage we use in our games.

Part of the amusement in this line of debate (for me) is that a number of contributors are putting forth so incredibly fun ideas... in some cases, very creative ideas... but rather than take a certain measure of credit, some are simply looking for validation that it has always been that way.

A KDY may not have been providing ships exclusively to the Empire but they were a major source of Imperial warships and thus a legitimate military target for the Empire's enemies. That would be like a small, aircraft equipped guerrilla force at war with the USA raiding a Lockheed Martin factory and stealing fighters than Lockheed complaining because they sell aircraft to groups other than the US Military, and would sell aircraft to the guerrillas if they could afford them. Honestly I could see the company doing that realistically but the complaint does not make the raid an evil act.

My Players are in the midst of an adventure right now, which involves an extremely terroristic Rebel cell. Roadside bombs, marketplace bombs, firefights in crowds, hiding in civilian homes, etcetera. Currently, the Players are agonizing over what to do, because this cell is producing unreal results in term of public dissatisfaction with the Imperial occupation, and to someone who can't actually see what's going on, the cell seems like a real asset.

It's very...Afghanistan-like.

I'm really curious to see what they finally decide on; this is their first real moral situation.

Just as a US soldier given an illegal order isn't just able to refuse it... he's legally obliged to refuse it.

Applies to British soldiers, sailors and airmen, too.

Yeah, sorry, SS, I actually thought of you as soon as I wrote that!

I also read extensively about the 'rules of engagement' during the 'Black Hawk Down' era in Somalia, and was astonished at the restraint the soldiers showed under such extreme provocation.

That's how I see the Alliance. Sure, there might be some bad eggs, even bad units (there is a notorious one in our game) but an effort is made to fight the GCW under a moral 'rules of engagement'.

My Players are in the midst of an adventure right now, which involves an extremely terroristic Rebel cell. Roadside bombs, marketplace bombs, firefights in crowds, hiding in civilian homes, etcetera. Currently, the Players are agonizing over what to do, because this cell is producing unreal results in term of public dissatisfaction with the Imperial occupation, and to someone who can't actually see what's going on, the cell seems like a real asset.

It's very...Afghanistan-like.

George Lucas needed a clear demarcation of 'good' and 'evil' for his film, extending this even to the visuals as 2P51 pointed out. But a role-playing game allows us to explore more nuances, I think, to introduce shades of grey. Our Alliance is still essentially the good guys, trying to fight a moral war, and the Empire is made up of several factions, most of which are equally nasty. But there should always be exceptions.

Our AoR campaign contains the so-called 'Bad Company', who are another SpecOps cell that's kind of gone rogue. They are essentially terrorists, caring nothing about collateral damage or rules of engagement. They were responsible for killing Monobrow Kid a decade or so back, so that gives them some goodwill with the top brass as well as the rank-and-file. A lot of them have tragic pasts - they have two entry conditions: to join, you need to have lost someone you loved to the Empire, and you have to personally murder an Imperial (in cold blood, not cleanly in battle).

The Alliance leaders officially condemn them, but it's hard to control SpecOps groups, and privately, they realise how successful they have been in the field, albeit at the cost of losing public opinion and the moral high ground the Alliance aspires to. Some of the Alliance members quietly consider them heroes, and secretly wish they could adopt these tactics too.

I intended them as a dark mirror to the PCs, a cautionary tale of what happens when you try to fight evil using its own methods. But already, some of the PCs are sympathizing...

Monobrow Kid?

Yeah, Mutant Eyebrow Boy in Eff-You, or whatever his name is.

I think I had Bad Company keep his monobrow as a trophy

Anyway, it gave them a certain leeway with the top brass, and made them heroes of a sort among the rank and file. It made their later excesses somewhat forgivable, in some people's eyes.

Yeah, Mutant Eyebrow Boy in Eff-You, or whatever his name is.

I think I had Bad Company keep his monobrow as a trophy

Anyway, it gave them a certain leeway with the top brass, and made them heroes of a sort among the rank and file. It made their later excesses somewhat forgivable, in some people's eyes.

Now I feel bad for Sam Witwer, not because you dislike the game that he voice acted in, but his eyebrow(s) will be the only thing you will remember him for.

I'm kidding, really.

Aw, he's better -looking in real-life than the game.

That hair's still gotta go, though

And no, it's not personal.

Wil Wheaton seems like a cool guy in real life, after all!

Yeah, Mutant Eyebrow Boy in Eff-You, or whatever his name is.

Character was Starkiller, or Galen Merik/Merrik/Marik (I forget which).

I liked the character and the story; I just hated the OTTness of the game. Still, I, at least, am happy for its inclusion in the rulebook fluff, more so because it was only vaguely referenced rather than given excessive detail. Now I can include it in my campaigns albeit with more believable action and risk.