Edit:

I appreciate all the feedback specific to this thread.

Direct references to the 'other' are unnecessary. This was not meant to be Part 2 to that one, simply a very basic discussion regarding the types of characters you prefer to play, and the types they associate with.

No specifics.

Without calling ANY specifics (let's keep the conversation civilized and the topic unlocked), I'd like to discuss the inherent opposition to playing characters that are as seedy and potentially repulsive as the society around them.

Why is it so wrong to play a character with inarguably major flaws? I thought that was the point of rolling for your Obligation and Motivation; the possibility of being a scummy kind of fellow.

In the essence of keeping this civil, don't go into detail, but simply state whether you prefer playing Paragon, Renegade, or any one of fifty shades of gray in between, and what your reasoning is.

I like playing the gray area and finding a way to make my fellow players question the matter themselves. Present something typically considered evil and present it in such a way that no one is really sure where it falls anymore.

The more I question it myself, the better I see it.

I think Star Wars provides the perfect setting . When the galaxy is essentially ruled by space Nazis it's okay to be very much on the wrong side of the law . In regards to morality or immorality I think that's going to have to be decided by each table as to what's acceptable or not. I like to keep it pretty tongue-in-cheek as well as very pop scifi old time serial, or basically pretty light. To me life serves up enough serious dreadful stuff every day I don't see why people would want to bring that to the table.

I don't think anyone objects to playing scummy villanous characters at all. However there is a line where villanous, scoundrel goes over into sick psychopath (killing children, ****** women, etc.) or uterly evil (slave trader, wookiee pelt dealer) now I don't imagine I would have any rights to tell others what to do in their games, but I am pretty sure that there is a line in the sand for everyone.

FFG doesn't tel you how to play your game, only you can so if you want to be paragons of light? No problem. If you want to be psychopaths? Enjoy your game. But FFG wrote a (great) game that in its fluff texts really walks a wonderfully straight line across the likeable scoundrel and intriguing bounty hunter way of gaming.

And it is probably because FFG has done a great job in adding the exact flavour to the book that fits with the scoundrel side and doesn't stray into the evil/sick psycho side at all that the other poster figured that he could discuss the fact that buying slave brides was inherently evil. Now, agree with him or not (or as others did make mental construction to allow you to justify its inclusion in the motivation text) I think we can all agree it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the character descriptions.

Boy, I hope this thread doesn't devolve into anger again...

I guess it comes down to: What is the story I'm trying to tell? I played a terrorist - not a rebel freedom fighter, but a full on IRA, roll some dynamite under the bus to kill the Moff civilians be dammed terrorist. He had no problem doing reprehensible acts in the name of the Greater Good - but Star Wars being a story of redemption, he eventually came around and evened out. Mind you, he was still a very dark character, but he leaned to temper his anger in time.

In that campagin, everyone in the group was playing a darker, harder tone. We went in knowing we'd be nasty (yet good) people - so there were no surprises. Worked out well, too - a great bunch of characters.

Without calling ANY specifics (let's keep the conversation civilized and the topic unlocked), I'd like to discuss the inherent opposition to playing characters that are as seedy and potentially repulsive as the society around them.

Why is it so wrong to play a character with inarguably major flaws? I thought that was the point of rolling for your Obligation and Motivation; the possibility of being a scummy kind of fellow.

In the essence of keeping this civil, don't go into detail, but simply state whether you prefer playing Paragon, Renegade, or any one of fifty shades of gray in between, and what your reasoning is.

I like playing the gray area and finding a way to make my fellow players question the matter themselves. Present something typically considered evil and present it in such a way that no one is really sure where it falls anymore.

The more I question it myself, the better I see it.

I like playing heroic characters typically. Playing evil / self-interested is too easy and also feels a little uninteresting. What's difficult is playing a character that needs to win without just doing whatever is best for themselves. That said, the last time I got an opportunity to play in a game (usually I GM), my character was very evil. But that was because the GM gave me a pre-generated character that did despicable things (like hunt people for sport) so what I did was come up with a psychological rationale for the character that made it work for me, where he was complex and had real emotions rather than just "I'm a sociopath". They're not inseperable but when you get an "evil" character, that is most commonly code for "take everything, care about nothing". Which is dull as it gets. But in any realistic setting (i.e. not a D&D game set up that way), an heroic character is going to find their motivations at odds with their self-interest.

Regards to your initial assumption about people's resistance to there being evil characters, I'm going to challenge that. As one of the people actively taking a position in that other thread, your conclusion doesn't fit what I argued there. I have run games with evil PCs and I have played deeply malignant characters myself on occasion. But I think context matters. Firstly, it depends on what we're talking about as the evil behaviour / motivation. Most people play characters who kill. But it's typically abstract and done on a level lacking a feel of reality or definite engagement. It's far from most people's lives who play and it's become normalized as part of role-playing games. We even have a term for it: "mooks" which are people lacking any personality or background or name and simply a place-holder to be killed. What is required for them to die is for the player to simply not engage with them as real things and GMs often set them up as obstacles in the game intended to be dealt with in this way. Result being that the psychological investment in this behaviour is negligible for most players.

Now in that other thread, it was suggested to players by the rulebook that their characters commit long-term sexual abuse and confinement on someone. I get irritated by the trite response of "but you kill people in the game so why complain about this". With what I just wrote about killing in the game above in mind, consider the differences with this. Firstly, it's not something remote from real life - there's a good chance you know someone who has been a victim of sexual abuse or one of the players has been or someone close to them has. It's tasteless and thoughtless to put that in people's faces if you're all sitting round a game table. It also requires a great deal more investment from the player to bring their character to do such things. It's almost the opposite of the generic masses of faceless mooks. By it's very nature something like sexual abuse from your character is personal and specific and thus stripped of much of the video game like unreality of killing mooks. When a D&D "hero" has killed a bunch of orcs, the GM doesn't then tell them that they find a group of terrified and defenceless orc children cowering at the back of the cave terrified. A GM can do that and occasionally does pull that or a variant. But it's a subversion of the trope - the exception that highlights the rule. And the rule is "treat it as a game token not something deeply involving for your character". All that goes out of the window when it's an actual character motivation. Which brings it onto the third difference. Violence is normalized in role-playing games and frequently set up as the means to progress: "now you fight 4 orcs and a bear". Tick the box, proceed to the next ten foot by ten foot room. Other sorts of behaviour, like sexual abuse, are not a means of progress. Nobody ever wrote an adventure that has "Encounter four: commit sexual abuse six times and you gain access to the treasure". At least I hope not and I know how most would perceive such an adventure if they did. So when a character is motivated by something like this that's all on the player. If you're playing a very mature, very psychological role-playing game with people you know well, maybe such a motivation can be handled well and is fine. But in the general case it is wildly different to shooting stormtroopers and I think everyone can now see why and how "it's a game where you kill people" is such a shallow and knee-jerk response to people who distrust this sort of "evil" in character behaviour.

Finally, there's simply the context of your audience. It's a role-playing game. You can do what you want with it and FFG's enforcers aren't going to show up at your house if you play it in a way they didn't intend. However, different products have different audiences. If I pick up a World of Darkness role-playing book, I know that it is targetting a particular adult audience - the themes in it may be dark, erotic, angsty (especially angsty. ). Star Wars is something that is inclusive of young children and adults alike. Does that mean that Star Wars shouldn't contain slavery and other such heinous things? No. Even TCW cartoon had a number of mature themes running through it including an episode where a young girl was imprisoned to be the child-bride of some rich and horrifying male. But the reason for that other thread was that this was suggested as a PC motivation. That's a different thing. If people want to run a dark and twisted Star Wars game then they entirely have that right. But table-top RPGs are a niche hobby with not enough gate-way lines to get people into it. FFG's Star Wars games are uniquely perfect for younger role-players: it's a franchise popular in its own right outside the hobby, the rules are elegant and easy to grasp and it's beautifully written. It has that audience that, for comparison, Vampire: The Emo'ing does not.

I've talked in generalities because of course there are exceptions to pretty much everything if you look hard enough. But that's okay because it's the general case I'm arguing. You posited something at the start, OP, that I don't think is accurate for many. A lot of the argument which you perceived as being against evil characters was essentially two things: specifically the sub-category of sex crimes which is something that has affected many of us or people we love in a way that blowing up Alderran has not. And secondly, that of course people can play evil characters if they wish but specifically directing players in specifically a Star Wars role-playing game with specific and deeply unpleasant motivations is not desirable.

I hope all that is fairly well-explained for where I come from on this subject.

Most of my characters start as Paragon but willing to pull renegade actions if they feel they are justified. How renegade they lean varies from case to case but typically my pirate/privateer characters or characters who were privateers in their past before becoming freelance cargo haulers or naval officers tend to lean more renegade then my characters who were straight military or Indys out of the gates.

However a number of them have gone dark over time. One ended up being maimed and exiled due to political infighting and went to command the private fleet of Palpatine, who had been exiled himself in this timeline, and later then Imperial navy. Another started out mostly good but eventually gave into the voice in his head whispering that enslaving someone isn't evil if they wish to be enslaved while on the verge of collapse due to juggling four jobs and being a single father. Another watched the alliance of worlds he had helped forge fall apart and ended up working for a newly formed Sith government because they were the ones who needed his talents the most and were willing to give him ehat he wanted.

Right now, my group is being affected by a paragon who decided, by himself, to throw a team vs team 'fight-to-the-death' rather than violate his principles.

He could have just stepped back and let someone else handle the difficult situation. Instead he decided it was OK to toss us all into slavery, possibly the Rancor pit.

If we end up in Kessel... they better not give me a shovel!

I don't know if its wrong. Wrong's pretty harsh for a role playing game unless you're rolling the wrong dice or something like that.

I don't think I'd play an immoral character because I don't think I could do it well but mostly because I want to like my character as a person. I have a hard time enjoying books or movies if there isn't someone for me to root for. I can root for bad people so long as there is a compelling reason for them being bad and I have the feeling that, as soon as they resolve whatever has them on the wrong side of neutral, they'll put away their naughtiness and go back to being good... Mostly.

If there's no logic behind a character's immorality, then it just seems like a lazy choice. The character doesn't consider what they SHOULD do to reach their goals. They just worry about the shortest path and what they CAN do. Maybe that gives you some cool moments in the story but its just not satisfying. To me, anyway.

It is hard or maybe impossible to play a moral character in the midst of immoral murderhobos unless you try to change them... speaking from experience. However, it is a lot easier to successfully be the moral character that tries to be a compass for a group of naughty-minded idiots than the other way around.

I appreciate all the feedback specific to this thread.

Direct references to the 'other' are unnecessary. This was not meant to be Part 2 to that one, simply a very basic discussion regarding the types of characters you prefer to play, and the types they associate with.

No specifics.

I don't think there is any problem with playing immoral, dark, or even downright evil people in a game. It's a game of imagination and fantasy where we get to do and be things we could never otherwise be.

The important limitation to this is that the thoughts and feelings of the rest of the group be taken into account. It's one thing if someone's character takes offence to the party including a Wookie Pelt Trader but the players thing the bit of internal conflict is interesting and are having fun then it's fine. On the other hand, if in the same party one of the players is absolutely horrified by the topic of Wookie skinning and is bothered each time it is brought up then there is a problem, it's affecting the ability of a member of the group to enjoy the game and that is what causes the line to be drawn.

I do tend to play friendly, paragon style characters but once or twice I've played some very, very dark characters that would do some absolutely horrific things. The people I played with were all wiling to encounter these kinds of themes which made it acceptable and the characters were a lot of fun. They didn't generally do it for no reason but their morality was certainly very skewed. And I certainly would never consider actually doing any of the things they did myself.

There's a key distinction between character and player. And as long as the players are fine with facing the make-believe scenarios that are involved, I don't see there should be a problem with someone playing, say.. a character who believes all people with blue colored eyes are idiots and who thusly treats all blue eyed characters as such regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean that person's player actually hates blue eyed people.

You can do whatever you like in your own game! When I was roleplaying with a guild in Star Wars Galaxies, we roleplayed as a crime syndicate on Tatooine and it was like the Godfather--our characters weren't nice, they were kidnapping people and paying off cops and smuggling drugs and betraying each other, etc. We just had fun with it.

Nowadays as a GM, I wouldn't be very interested in running a game for a group who wanted to actually kidnap people and blow up hospitals and sell spice to kids, etc etc. That's just not what I'm looking for in a game now. I want to feel like the PCs in the game at least *want* to be decent people.

I'd be interested in playing "Firefly", but not "Breaking Bad" or "Dexter". But if you have a group of people who are into that, then who cares what anyone else thinks?

I had a player back in Saga who wanted to be a young Jedi who fell to the Dark Side over time. Being about 16 at the time and not nearly as wise, I gave him a tentative OK, so long as things weren't disruptive. His version of falling to the Dark Side over time was trying to murder any NPC that he couldn't enslave and try to sell for profit. When the party objected and tried reasoning with him, he attacked. They put his character down... It was the first session.

He loved his power-hungry madmen, and his next character was a Rogue Trader psyker. I think he wanted to become a Daemonhost... Lucky us, he failed and just got himself sucked into the Warp. After that he leveled out and began playing normal characters. Why we gave him a third chance I don't know...

Now I just warn my players not to make psychopathic murderers and party-breaking characters, and we all get along fine. Some want revenge, some are just in it for credits and would gladly sell out the Rebels to the Empire for some shiny coin, some are ex-ISB interrogators (and will use their gift), some try to emotionally manipulate those they can charm, some secretly want to murder other party members over grievances in their backstories (when the campaign is over - not during), etc. But we ensure that these things don't get in the way of having a good time. It's all fairly lighthearted to us.

We don't actually get into really dark stuff except in the occasional Dark Heresy game, and then it's off camera and just there to make the villains really evil.

There's nothing wrong with playing a morally questionable (or even a morally reprehensible) character, if that's what you like. However, it's all about the expectations set at the start of the game.

For example, in order to avoid a clashing of personality types, I usually tell my players their characters need strong moral compasses. This usually makes them draw the line at things like slavery, pointless murder, etc. I also tend to set the general rating of my games at R, so strong language and violence is fine and sex may come up as implied (but never shown in detail).

All this stuff happens in the players' heads, though, so I have a few extra rules I usually call out specifically to avoid people going down a dark path while they're trying to stay in character. Torture, for example, will never happen "on screen" and will never happen to a PC without the player's consent (and will still happen off screen). **** will never happen, period. It's just not a thing people like to consider happening in the universe, so it's off-limits even as an implied event or a backstory detail. Nobody should have that in their headspace when getting into character.

That said, depending on the wishes of the party, I'd be willing to alter any of this so long as I was comfortable with it.

As a player, I actually enjoy playing flawed characters, but as you may have gathered from the ground rules I have for my own game, I also like my characters to have hearts of gold. It's what I aspire to be, so it's what I tend to fantasize about. I've played scum before and enjoyed it, but only as an aside. For long-term campaigns I always try to give my characters at least a few redeeming qualities.

Roleplaying games are the perfect place for one to experiment with moralities alternate to one's own. It's a theoretically safe place to be a Very Bad Person with little if any consequences. This is a good discussion to have during session zero, although any time's a good time if one thinks it'll bring trouble to the table. Everyone has a different take on right and wrong and playing something outside one's comfort zone can be fulfilling in ways one can't imagine. The cardinal rule of roleplaying is still in play here: as long as everyone's having a good time, there's no wrong way to do it.

I don't like playing Edge to be like Shadowrun. Edge is supposed to channel Han Solo, meaning a rogue with a heart of gold, who does some bad things to protect him and his, but in the end he's a Good Guy in a cinematic space opera. If you want total gray amoral "kill em all and let God sort it out" mercenaries, I think Shadowrun provides a much better option and setting for it.

That said it's important that everyone be on generally the same page when the game is starting. It's no fun if you're the hero with a heart of gold in a group of Kill**** Soul****ters who just care about the creds. It's also no fun being the totally gray guy in a group of Paladins who constantly try to force you to act the way they want.

I don't like playing Edge to be like Shadowrun. Edge is supposed to channel Han Solo, meaning a rogue with a heart of gold, who does some bad things to protect him and his, but in the end he's a Good Guy in a cinematic space opera. If you want total gray amoral "kill em all and let God sort it out" mercenaries, I think Shadowrun provides a much better option and setting for it.

But Edge doesn't have to be. Maybe you're playing Bosk or IG-88, a bounty hunter out trying to make a living, even if that means taking jobs from the Empire. Or you're a deep space scout, looking for new worlds that haven't yet been explored or hyper-routes that'll reduce the travel time between known places. Or you work for the Hutts, smuggling stuff to various places (like Han prior to the first movie or Mal throughout the whole series of Firefly).

Besides, Han strikes me more as the guy with a "sense of honor" than a "heart of gold". He might have rescued Chewie from the Imps, but he had no issue with smuggling drugs and other cargoes that can probably harm the people that use them. He took his pay from the Rebellion, but decided to risk something to help them, much like he did with Chewie. In the various books he maintains that roguish guy (even in the new canon).

I don't like playing Edge to be like Shadowrun. Edge is supposed to channel Han Solo, meaning a rogue with a heart of gold, who does some bad things to protect him and his, but in the end he's a Good Guy in a cinematic space opera. If you want total gray amoral "kill em all and let God sort it out" mercenaries, I think Shadowrun provides a much better option and setting for it.

But Edge doesn't have to be. Maybe you're playing Bosk or IG-88, a bounty hunter out trying to make a living, even if that means taking jobs from the Empire. Or you're a deep space scout, looking for new worlds that haven't yet been explored or hyper-routes that'll reduce the travel time between known places. Or you work for the Hutts, smuggling stuff to various places (like Han prior to the first movie or Mal throughout the whole series of Firefly).

Besides, Han strikes me more as the guy with a "sense of honor" than a "heart of gold". He might have rescued Chewie from the Imps, but he had no issue with smuggling drugs and other cargoes that can probably harm the people that use them. He took his pay from the Rebellion, but decided to risk something to help them, much like he did with Chewie. In the various books he maintains that roguish guy (even in the new canon).

That's fine, I still maintain the party needs to be on a similar page. If most of your crew are Hutt slave species and are doing bounty hunting and then you have like one bleeding-heart Twi'lek doctor, you might already have some problems with player group cohesion. Not like...slight conflict, which can be fun, but "why are these people hanging out together at all" conflict.

Morality is a tough one in the context of an RPG because it's a fantasy, generally adversarial, and that it's an outlet in a world where violence is the norm rather than something we strive to eliminate. Also even though humans have a lot of basic morals in common we also have many conflicting moralities because of culture and religion. My advise is if you find something in your game morally repellent mention it and gauge everyone's responses and go adjust your game accordingly. It's also possible to merely narrate the unseemly bits or have them happen off screen without actually playing them.

The subject in "the other" thread for me in a way shows this difference. I for one was not put off by the sexual nature that it's OP was repelled by or even the slavery aspect as I understand it's a game in a setting that has slavery as an established evil. Sexuality is a human thing and not an issue for me. Sexism however is something that I think is one of the many things we are still working through as a culture and I argued that it had no place in a wholly fabricated modern SfFi fantasy RPG. It adds nothing to the game and can put off women players.

All this said I still believe that even though EotE is a game that is set in the underbelly of the Empire the PCs are supposed to be Heroes of the sort we see in the films. That doesn't mean you can't play it otherwise I just don't think it's what SW is really all about.

Role playing bad or flawed characters is difficult.

Take a look at games like Fallout and Mass Effect. You can find all kinds of posts about people that tried to be bad, but couldn't. For most people that are relatively new to role playing, it's hard to role play outside of your own personality, or what you perceive as a heroic personality. You don't know how an evil person would act, and trying to think like one, or understand their drives and desires can be uncomfortable.

Even in SW TOR, a lot of people playing dark side characters played them as morally good, because it was difficult to be a total jerk to everyone you meet.

It goes against a deep, biological instinct to be generally kind to others. After all, being kind to others gives you the greatest chance of survival from an evolutionary standpoint.

Typically, new roleplayers tend to favor the 'good' characters, or characters than can be played as 'good'. Jedi, paladins, basic fighters. Then tend to play them as noble heroes, doing good, and saving others.

Over time, after some experience with the idea of role playing, they'll branch out and play more neutral, or even boarderline evil characters.

Edge is kind of interesting as not many settings really offer you a built in way to be evil. Edge offers that ability which is pretty interesting. Strangely enough though, FFG/Disney hasn't gone so far as to make playing an Imperial a real option yet.

Evil (not doing what's right) doesn't require you to be a jerk to everyone you meet, it can be accomplished simply through inaction. Good (doing what's right) does require you to be a decent person to everyone you meet, and can only be accomplished through intentional action.

Look into ethics a bit, and you'll see how much harder it is to be a good person than a bad one.

Look into ethics a bit, and you'll see how much harder it is to be a good person than a bad one.

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."

Evil (not doing what's right) doesn't require you to be a jerk to everyone you meet, it can be accomplished simply through inaction. Good (doing what's right) does require you to be a decent person to everyone you meet, and can only be accomplished through intentional action.

Look into ethics a bit, and you'll see how much harder it is to be a good person than a bad one.

And when one comes to realize that these concepts are subjective, then you get into the real fun. Spoiler: Anakin didn't feel like he was doing evil.

Playing "evil" in a roleplaying game is difficult more for reasons of it more often creates unnessecary conflicts, than enjoyment for all, absent a mature roleplaying group that understands that being evil isn't just about being a **** to everyone, murderhobo and thief that sells out his party mates.

If your players understand that and actually "roleplay" developed characters capable of interacting with others in ways other than those listed above its doable.

Role playing bad or flawed characters is difficult.

I've had some success equating "bad" to selfishness, whereas "good" could be equated to selflessness. Too often, though, we see "bad" characters as all out guano-crazy-flip-the-bird-to-everyone and that kind of Chaotic Stupid behavior isn't logical. While there's surely a handful of those types out there, the majority of "bad" guys are looking at what they can get from a situation. For example, a "bad" scoundrel might not abandon his buddies in a bad firefight "because he's evil and that's what evil does." He could realize that he needs them for his own purposes if friendship isn't enough (hey, bad guys can have friends!)

Maybe I'm just a rambling old man, but I don't feel like good and evil are diametrically opposed and in order to be one, one cannot be the other. I picture it more like ingredients flavoring a stew, since I have a hard time conceptualizing people that are 100% good or bad.

Evil (not doing what's right) doesn't require you to be a jerk to everyone you meet, it can be accomplished simply through inaction. Good (doing what's right) does require you to be a decent person to everyone you meet, and can only be accomplished through intentional action.

Look into ethics a bit, and you'll see how much harder it is to be a good person than a bad one.

All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions.