On the other hand....

How would the PCs know he could've been saved? Are they all Force users? Well then, shouldn't they all be trying to roll move to save him? If none of them are Force users, they'd have to metagame to hell and back to know he could've been saved.

"Couldn't you have done that handwavey thing you do?"

"Well, it doesn't always work."

That's a moot point, because the player will know, and that's the crux of the argument. If that was my character you let die you dâmn well better believe I'd be pissed as all get out at you, the player, not your character. You chose a minor mechanical widget over my freakin' character. There would be words, and either a major change in how you play or one of us would walk.

In effect, you're saying that your character's "purity"—whatever that really means—is more important than my enjoyment of the game. I interact with the game via my character, take that away and I'm not a player anymore, I'm a bystander. Balls to that.

-EF

Yes. Aside from the issue of how can DS points and Conflict be interpreted and affect the character and the story, letting another PC die is poor player behavior.

BUT this also depends on the play group and the people involved. Like you this would bother me but it's possible the player whose character died wouldn't mind (and angelalex knew this). But it does seem like a serious breech of the "social contract" of a role playing game, especially among friends.

AND some of this should also fall on the GM as well. Again, each table has fun in it's own way but I have a problem with games where the GM "kills" characters without any meaningful story element involved or serious combat, especially in Star Wars where heroes are meant to survive all sorts of crazy stuff.

I do not know your table, so maybe all is fine and dandy there (although in your description it does not sound that way, your fellow player certainly does not sound happy), but in my experience, a lot of players would be irked by your decision. Roleplaying is a social game, you are supposed to be a team, and sometimes that means taking a hit for the team.

I guess my take on it is: if you automatically dismiss every single instance of violating your mental purity, it removes a HUGE amount of drama from the character. The character is faced with a situation where he has to use bad force to activate his move, where the emotions are running hot and the desperation is palatable - and yet he rises above it and avoids temptation versus "Oh, he's just not using his darkside pips again."

One is drama, the other is avoiding the dark side by rote.

And yes - Jedi get mad and act out. Kenobi did, Anakin (who admittedly may not be the best example ) did before he turned completely, Skywalker did, Mace did. So yeah, not that uncommon to be tempted and rise above (or not, as the case may be).

On the other hand....

How would the PCs know he could've been saved? Are they all Force users? Well then, shouldn't they all be trying to roll move to save him? If none of them are Force users, they'd have to metagame to hell and back to know he could've been saved.

"Couldn't you have done that handwavey thing you do?"

"Well, it doesn't always work."

Here's an AngryDM article about your decision:

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-stupid-decisions-and-metagaming/

The title says it all...

One is drama, the other is avoiding the dark side by rote.

Using a dark pip here and there and going to the darkside is even more of a jump than jaywalking a few times and suddenly you are a mass murder.

One is drama, the other is avoiding the dark side by rote.

Another way to put it would be that one is playing a living breathing multi-dimensional character that is part of a living world and another is playing a toon in a game.

Using a dark pip here and there and going to the darkside is even more of a jump than jaywalking a few times and suddenly you are a mass murder.

Hey man, don't joke! My invisible friend was killed by a mass-murdering jaywalker!

-EF

I do not know your table, so maybe all is fine and dandy there (although in your description it does not sound that way, your fellow player certainly does not sound happy), but in my experience, a lot of players would be irked by your decision. Roleplaying is a social game, you are supposed to be a team, and sometimes that means taking a hit for the team.

I guess my take on it is: if you automatically dismiss every single instance of violating your mental purity, it removes a HUGE amount of drama from the character. The character is faced with a situation where he has to use bad force to activate his move, where the emotions are running hot and the desperation is palatable - and yet he rises above it and avoids temptation versus "Oh, he's just not using his darkside pips again."

One is drama, the other is avoiding the dark side by rote.

And yes - Jedi get mad and act out. Kenobi did, Anakin (who admittedly may not be the best example ) did before he turned completely, Skywalker did, Mace did. So yeah, not that uncommon to be tempted and rise above (or not, as the case may be).

"Avoiding the Dark Side by rote..." Yup that sums it up in a nutshell. That was one of the major defects (in my opinion) of WEG Star Wars. The rules were so arbitary and soo less dramatic that Force sensitive characters knew just how much they could get away with, then "Atone" and be good again. The entire spirit of the Force as presented in the Saga was lost because everyone (including myself) were following D6 Star Wars RAW.

I'd finally had enough of one player using the Force as nothing more than a glorfied chaotic-neutral magic user from D&D. I was done... he did one thing I found highly dubious (basically used the Force to torture info out of an NPC) for a so-called good guy, and promptly asked him to hand over his character... he was now consumed by the dark side. I played the scene up that he had lost control of himself and was basically killing this man... the other characters had to intervene, and I had the character (now and NPC) flee the scene. Boy was he pissed.

During a break I explained to him why I made the decision I made (and this was after serveral previous warnings). He sort of understood, and to keep him content I set up the next adventure for our heroes to "bring him back to the light." Overall I think he learned his lesson. But from that point forward I was a lot more loose with the rules on the Dark Side and Atonement.

Why do people keep claiming there is a choice?

I want to use influence to avoid a fight.

Roll black pips

Well yay I'm going to have to be evil to avoid a fight..

Does that even make sense?

There is no choice its dice determining my morality when my Characters motivations were pure.

I use a few dark side activations, which were totally saintly in motivation saving people, avoiding conflicts, healing injured people you know being Darth Jesus. Then I totally roll a one on my morality die at the end of the Session. Well I guess my adherence to the jedi code and generally being a nice guy is rewarded by falling towards the dark side, because saving kittens from trees and stuff is totally evil due to me happening to roll black dice while using force powers...

I love me some ROLL playing.

Because you don't HAVE to use the dark side pips.. it IS giving you a choice 100%.

In most other games you wouldn't have a choice.. you would roll your dice and fail and that would be the end of it.. you failed and the people you wanted to influence aren't influenced and a fight ensues.

In this system, you instead roll all darkside pips. Now you have a CHOICE.. you can let it fail and tada, it's just like any other pass fail roll. You simply failed and deal with it like that. Or you CHOOSE to give into the temptation of those darkside pips and use them to pass the roll.

How is it NOT a choice, the game isn't forcing you to use those dark side pips. It is presenting the option of using them, however, doing so comes at a cost.

If that cost is appropriate or something people certainly have varying opinions on, but nothing about the system makes the use of the darkside pips anything but a choice.

OK, I have avoided a lot of possible comments on the whole Angelalex242 view point because I believe there is no right or wrong way to enjoy a game, as long as you can find other who can enjoy it with you in a similar and complementary way. That being said, take the following as an opinion only.

Your statement that it is your choice as a player and not your characters choice actually makes the whole situation sour more to me than thinking it was a roleplaying choice with the character. It's easier to think a particular character could think that way, but the player deliberately being an a**hat to the other players is beyond what a GM should allow. Only rule of gaming is have fun (everyone, GM included). If you are not having fun or are causing others to not have fun, find another game or possibly hobby.

I have been gaming for over 30 years and have played with several people with this mentality. In EVERY instance I have ever experienced it had been poison to the game. Choking it with a slow death. In some extreme instances, friendships have ended because of it.

Your character refusing to not use his powers because of the possibility of conflict is, psychologically speaking, selfish and self-serving behavior through justification. No different than a serial killer justifying his murders as him relieving the victims of the pain of this reality or saving others by only killing bad people (Dexter, etc). He should be gaining conflict every time he allows something to happen through inaction(especially if that action is merely an inconvenience). In your example with the cliff incident, if he pushed a character that trusted him and had his confidence it would be murder. He deliberately took a life and betrayed someone who trusted him. By allowing him to fall while you could have done something to save him/her by deliberate inaction you are allowing this atrocity to happen. You gain conflict if you alloy another character in your party to murder, steal for selfish reasons, etc. his is worse IMHO.

The way you play your character is "he will never spend a darkside pip" (paraphrased from earlier posts). If that is the case you would have to be able to sell me a fishing pond in the Sahara for me (were I the GM) to allow you to start with a "paragon" level of Morality. Is it possible? Sure, but it's also possible someone could have deflected a meteorite with well timed flatulence, but I, as a GM, wouldn't allow that either. That is spamming the system, power-gaming pure and true. Wrong? Not if everyone is cool with it, but i this case it seems likely to cause strife at the table.

That being said, you sir/ma'am should be thankful you are allowed to game at that table with that personal attitude. You have a very tolerant and special group. You might want to consider what your personal actions and choices are doing to their fun. If you keep with the current attitude (which from an outside perspective, from reading your posts is classically selfish and anti-social) you should not be surprised if you find yourself looking for another group in which to play.

Either way, if your group is fine with it, beautiful enjoy and happy gaming. Continue to have your brand of fun, but be aware that your particular view point is not the norm for any that I have ever met and (obviously) meets with considerable resistance with MANY others.

As for the OT, I, personally, think the Morality mechanic is a better example of the journey with the force than presented in any other Star Wars game to date (and I have played them ALL). To use metaphor and simile, a force using character is like having a car (force). You want her to stay pristine, you want to only put the best fuel, finest oil, etc. into her (light side points, pleasant situations, etc) to avoid undue ware and tear. That will never happen. You sometimes have to use lower grade fuel, cheaper oil, refurbished/junker parts, etc. (conflict) If you take care of her (use conflict to your advantage) she will out last you, however if you run her into the ground she will betray you (darkside). The only way to put no ware and tear on her is to park her in a garage. (Not the greatest example, but I woke up early with little sleep )

Peace

Eh. I'm pretty consistent like that. I won't taint my characters that care about morality for someone else's benefit. In ANY genre, not just star wars. My Paladins won't kill a baby for you either. I tend to view the whole thing as 'ends justify the means.' 'The end of you being happy because you don't have to make a new character does not justify the means of me doing evil to make you happy.'

'The end of you (player) being happy because you don't have to make a new character does not justify the means of me (character) doing evil to make you happy.'

I added the stuff in bold. I think that's why most people have a problem with this...

Want to know a dictionary definition of evil? Something that produces or threatens sorrow, distress, injury or calamity. A calamity like, say, the death of an ally.

Eh. I'm pretty consistent like that. I won't taint my characters that care about morality for someone else's benefit. In ANY genre, not just star wars. My Paladins won't kill a baby for you either. I tend to view the whole thing as 'ends justify the means.' 'The end of you being happy because you don't have to make a new character does not justify the means of me doing evil to make you happy.'

I don't even. How can you compare saving an ally by taking, what, 2 Conflict, and killing a baby? Killing a baby is evil, saving an ally is…

*mic drop*

Anakin thought that way too. He saved his allies. Every single time. Over and over again. He saved 'em. All he really wanted was to stop people he cared about from dying. A nice man told him he had a way to help him stop those he cared about from dying.

What was his name again? That Chancellor guy?

And what'd Anakin do to stop people he cared about from dying? Something at the Jedi Temple, in episode 3? Can't quite remember...

It's the difference between living in the moment...and recognizing a slippery slope when one sees one.

Anakin's preference to save people's lives was never a bad thing. He failed because he was an emotionally imbalance individual with zero self-control and he listened and confided in someone who was a opportunistic liar with an agenda. There were other elements, but saving lives was not the root of the problem.

Guys, give up. Either he is winding you up or he is being obtuse....

I've been reading this for awhile and I can say that if I was like that at my table I wouldn't have a group to game with.

I remember a scene where me and a friend were arguing in character and we we're obviously role playing well cause after the session our GM contacted us both and ask "Dude are you ok?" He couldn't tell if it was our characters that were arguing or us as players.

Either way just this whole thing is making me shake my head. Wow just wow. As a lot of people have said, myself included, If this was happening in our group that player wouldn't have a group to game with unless they changed what they were doing.

I just don't have any other words to say. I kinda feel sorry for the rest of the people in that group.

Eh. I'm pretty consistent like that. I won't taint my characters that care about morality for someone else's benefit. In ANY genre, not just star wars. My Paladins won't kill a baby for you either. I tend to view the whole thing as 'ends justify the means.' 'The end of you being happy because you don't have to make a new character does not justify the means of me doing evil to make you happy.'

I think I found the crux of the problem in its reasoning.

The table on page 324 regarding common conflict point penalties, lists "Knowing Inaction" as a 1 point conflict penalty for knowingly allowing a 5+ conflict event to occur.

So, in this case, only gaining one point of conflict as compared to 2-3 for flipping that DP and tapping into those pesky emotions that allow you to be the hero, is a rational trade-off (for the power-gamer).

Personally, (for non dark-siders), I would bump that up to "2 conflict + the amount of conflict of the action in which you're allowing to happen."

Usually good people who allow, or believe they could have prevented, a gruesome crime/event are more conflicted than those who commit the crime/event.

In the situation it describes, I wonder if its position would be the same if it knew that it would gain 9-12 conflict for allowing the death of an ally (dare we say 'friend'), or take the 2-3 for tapping the dark side?

Anyway, my point is probably mute with it, but perhaps others will see the problem with the "Knowing Inaction" conflict cost and adjust it in their game to provide the right amount of Conflict to propel their players to be heroes, and not dogmatic sociopaths.

My Paladins won't kill a baby for you either.

You do realize that there's many, many layers of gradation between jaywalking and murdering a room full of babies, right?

It's the difference between living in the moment...and recognizing a slippery slope when one sees one.

You can rationalize it in-character as much as you like (and given how arbitrary and internally inconsistent the Jedi teachings are, you can pretty much rationalize anything with them), but what most folk here are talking about is you the player, not your character. You were a bad team mate for your fellow player in the eyes of many. Not your character, you as a player. You put your vision of your character in front of anything, ranking a minor setback for your character as more important than the death of another PC. All the while completely ignoring all the juicy roleplaying opportunities and narratives you could have opened up by having your character "fail" - and fail is a pretty strong word for something that is highly unlikely to actually lower your Morality given that the act itself only accrues minuscule Conflict.

In short, it is about you, not about your character.

Kind of reminds me of the rationalizations people used to make when debating that D&D alignment didn't work.

Kind of reminds me of the rationalizations people used to make when debating that D&D alignment didn't work.

Yesterday I was Good so I rewarded myself with a few drinks which ths morning made me Chaotic Evil and now I am home in my garden waiting for my Big Green Egg to reach that sizzling hot temperature I am True Neutral.

True Neutral is an impossibility. Every action, no matter how small, is good or evil, chaos or order. "I just took a whiz, do I flush the toilet now, or do I conserve water and save the planet? But what if I dropped a duce? I'm impacting others by stinking up the house with duke smell, but if I waste water, the lakes will be that much lower and fish could die because of me! Oh, the strain on my soul!"

True neutral means flushing the toilet so I don't smell my ****.

You know, I should delete my post and leave you with the Non-sequitor Post of the Week.

I'm the kind of guy who likes having his morality score in the high 90s, if not 100 outright.

And if you do good deeds you will get there. Even if you get a few conflict every session.