It seems difficult to work with this one...how often is a character going to simply not take action because it's too difficult? Where does the dark side come into that?

Examples would be nice.

On the phone with my GM as I type this.

There is a difference between turning a blind eye and simply having to accept there is nothing one can do.

True, but how is that going to really play out in-game, and how does it really interact with Morality and Conflict?

For instance, my character has verbally berated a couple of party members for their heinous actions (like shooting an unarmed prisoner, or axing a fleeing spy who had taken no aggressive actions up to that point), but hasn't intervened physically, hasn't confronted them in a more meaningful way. Now, I'm not sure what I could do, short of trying to restrain them (and failing), or using Mind Trick, which wouldn't last very long. Does that come across as Apathy? I don't think so, but then, what would? If I simply shrugged, heaved a sigh and walked out of the room? I don't see that representing much of a struggle along the lines of Love and Hate, for example. Sure, it's relevant, but it's pretty low-key.

And how does that play out in regards to encounters (social or combat)?

My GM just couldn't see how Apathy would be a compelling moral weakness. As it is, I think I'm okay going with Compassion and Mercy/Fear and Recklessness, because those are the traits my character has demonstrated so far, but it would be good to get a sense of how this plays out in the game.

I'd just ask your GM if he wants you to intervene or if he is just ok with you giving the other party members a dressing down when they are 'bad'. Might be fun if you had Move specced out to disarm everyone when they go to shoot the unarmed prisoners....

I'd just ask your GM if he wants you to intervene or if he is just ok with you giving the other party members a dressing down when they are 'bad'. Might be fun if you had Move specced out to disarm everyone when they go to shoot the unarmed prisoners....

That's something I've considered, but so far I've done a fair job of hiding my Force abilities from most of the group--one knows about my being a Jedi because I sensed him using the Force in anger and hatred and addressed the issue (he has since semi-rerolled his character and abandoned the Force), and the other overheard me speaking with the aforementioned character and a Jedi Master. I've impressed upon him that it wouldn't be good for anyone if it came out that he was traveling with a Jedi, though if he comes across a sweet bounty there could be problems. And he's kind of noticed me trying and failing to Influence him, and hasn't been happy.

If I am in that situation again, I'll ask for a Vigilance check to notice what he's going to do and try to react to it, and may try to use the power subtly, to avoid anyone else noticing...hopefully.

Honestly, what I really want is for no one else to find out I'm a Jedi until we get to some really dangerous confrontation and I describe taking a cylinder out of my robes and igniting a meter-long blue beam, stepping to the front and saying, "I got this." ...at which point I probably get blasted into oblivion with my low WT, soak, and (currently) lack of any defensive abilities beyond the left side of Sense.

Your character could always physically step between your party and their victim. "I'm against this to the point that you'll have to go through me to do it." is a strongly anti-apathy. That may be out of character for your force user, as it seems like your go-to approach is subtlety. But subtlety doesn't seem to be working very well, and you're risking revealing yourself as a force user to more people with influence.

Heck, even the moment you choose to take a more firm stance against apathy could be a pretty awesome character growth moment if you choose an appropriately dramatic moment, like your party is about to perform their most heinous act yet.

At the risk of threadcrapping, I'll just quickly say that I would steer clear of Apathy. Kiss or kill the villains, just don't ignore them...

I would definitely chat about it with a one of the characters in my group before I'd let them choose apathy. I have nothing against it, I just know the players in our group. None of them are prone to let their characters just let something go, or sit idly by while exciting things may be going on. I wouldn't out and out forbid it, but we'd have to discuss how they plan to work it. If they have to many sessions go by where they don't play to the weakness I'd either ask them to change it, or come up with some sort of in-game penalty. Perhaps a few less xp for nt role playing a character correctly? I'd have to think about it.

I know I'd have trouble playing an apathetic character long term.

Well, I'd say if you're trying to roleplay Merciful/Apathy, one way of showing it is defending your evil fellow pc's when they are confronted by others with their evil deeds. Or helping them rationalize, while at the same time mildly trying to convince them there is a better way? An enabler??

Well, I'd say if you're trying to roleplay Merciful/Apathy, I'd say one way of showing it is defending your evil fellow pc's when they are confronted by others with their evil deeds. Or helping them rationalize, while at the same time mildly trying to convince them there is a better way? An enabler??

I like that. Not quite apathy, but it's along the same lines that as the idea of that emotional weakness.

I'm doing something like that with Fearful--not paralyzed by fear, but driven to Recklessness by it. So far, the only time my character has used a dark side point has been when negotiations with a Hutt's aid broke down, largely due to my meddling (choosing to free the enslaved Wookies we found in the cargo the crew was hired to steal, rather than turn them over, and then trying to bluff our way through everything that followed), and several horribly failed rolls, and it looked like I might get some of the crew killed, and flipped a Destiny to disarm the adversary in the fight. That was fear that my actions, however well-intentioned, might lead to the deaths of the people I'd been traveling with.

Apathy is best summed up as "meh" --which to me means the character simply isn't motivated enough to care. It's not even seeing that a problem is "too big" to do anything about, it's more along the lines "it doesn't involve me, so why should I bother?"

Real genuine apathy wouldn't even get that far. So as an emotional weakness, oddly enough it's easy to roleplay. It's arguably the most common emotional weakness present on the internet... so pretty easy to play. If the players don't care about the plight of others, and have a hard time motivating themselves to get involved, then that'd be earning conflict in relation to one's emotional weakness...

A lot of good answers. To me, the key is that it's paired with Mercy. The strength is Mercy, the weakness is Apathy.

The character is exposed to a person who is suffering in some way. They have the option to provide mercy. The alternative is to be apathetic. "It would only be a drop in the bucket, it wouldn't do any good anyway."

Apathy is best summed up as "meh" --which to me means the character simply isn't motivated enough to care.

I'd disagree, at least in my own interpretation.

That is certainly one definition of the word "apathy", but to me the significant thing is that it's paired with Mercy.

Faced with a mass of refugees stricken by hunger but having very little resources, a character could give in to the emotional weakness of Apathy by feeling that the problem is so big that making no action is forgiveable.

Whereas the emotional strength of Mercy would be to make a formidable effort and help as many people as possible.

At least that's my take on it.

Apathy is best summed up as "meh" --which to me means the character simply isn't motivated enough to care.

I'd disagree, at least in my own interpretation.

That is certainly one definition of the word "apathy", but to me the significant thing is that it's paired with Mercy.

Faced with a mass of refugees stricken by hunger but having very little resources, a character could give in to the emotional weakness of Apathy by feeling that the problem is so big that making no action is forgiveable.

Whereas the emotional strength of Mercy would be to make a formidable effort and help as many people as possible.

At least that's my take on it.

I feel like you're describing Compassion , not Mercy with your example. Mercy is treating those over whom you have power with kindness, often treating an opponent better than they would have treated you if the roles were reversed--not striking down your now unarmed enemy, not taking advantage of the weak, etc... Compassion is helping others in their plight.

Mercy fundamentally embodies caring. Apathy is the lack of care, so they are paired reasonably well. Mercy, depending on how it is used is synonymous with kindness. No kind act is too small, and it displays an active form of empathy. It's not whether or not the action itself will change the universe, but the sum of merciful acts can. Apathy on the other hand just doesn't care, and frankly would prefer not to know.

I feel like you're describing Compassion , not Mercy with your example. Mercy is treating those over whom you have power with kindness, often treating an opponent better than they would have treated you if the roles were reversed--not striking down your now unarmed enemy, not taking advantage of the weak, etc... Compassion is helping others in their plight.

yeti1069, you're right, I was really thinking of compassion. Another problem with going from the word itself ("mercy") versus the specific meaning described by the text.

Reading the descriptions, they make a point that apathy toward enemies could spring from the feeling that there are too many or it's too hard to deal with them.

I think your description is spot on.

Mercy is "not giving someone the punishment they deserve" - avoiding "an eye for an eye". This can bring about appreciation in one's enemies, or reduce tensions/end cycles of violence. So to me, the idea I see in FFG's strength-weakness pairings is that the PC's strength is the same as their weakness, just warped, taken too far or misplaced. So when a PC is so "merciful" that she doesn't hold anyone to account for their actions, it becomes apathy; meanwhile she may think she's still just being Merciful. It's forgetting victims and not helping resolve root problems. Take a look at all the strength/weakness pairs and you'll see what I mean.

Apathy, as described in the book, is pulling a Batman vs. Joker deal. You could easily kill them, but your Mercy makes you let them live, while yor Apathy lets them go free (they've learned their lesson, they'll be fine).