I think its more you don't get to be Yoda by just going through the motions.

Right now Morality is just going through the motions with no real challenge.

I really like this metaphor! Got a good laugh from it at the very least.

I think its more you don't get to be Yoda by just going through the motions.

Right now Morality is just going through the motions with no real challenge.

I think, more accurately, the system allows for this to occur. The responsibility falls to the GM to present challenges that their players actually have to face and deal with. But if the GM doesn't make this happen players are still easily able to hit paragon status with no true effort on their part. It sits the responsibility on the GM to make sure players are facing situations that challenge their morality rather than requiring it in order for them to progress towards the lightside.

So far we haven't had any major problem with the current mechanic. While not neccessarily how I would have sone it, it's what we have at the moment. I can imagine the system probably hit, at least, some minor modifications between the last update and print, but perhaps not.

As for the "sleeping your way to paragon", we use the 'misinterpreted' idea of no conflict=no roll. Nothing can grow in a sterile environment. If there is no challenge, there is no growth. To us, it's like pruning a tree. Let it go and it will be fine and produce fruit, that's just it's nature. But to have it flourish, you need to 'damage' it by pruning back the limbs. Only through this adversity does the tree react by extra growth and production. The need to survive. The same goes for force users in F&D I think, no challenge means no growth.

Now, as for the DSP situation, if you think that the using of DSPs is counter productive and doesn't fit the situation or the morality choice or the machanical cost either, you could always just give the player a choice. Flip a token, and generate no conflict, or don't flip a token and generate conflict on a point-point basis. Either way the strain is still used.

The GM still can still assign conflict based on roleplaying choices and it also give the player more control without feeling like the "Force must really hate me".

By the Beta RAW do players gain conflict for not acting to the "good" side of their Morality? What happens when a PC is presented a situation that plays into their positive emotion but don't act on it? Or don't actively seek that side of their Morality?

I would have thought that this would be the balancing side of the "Sleeping to Paragon" issue, you can't sleep your way if your not acting on your positive emotions, and surly an individual is going to think back on those moments with regret which is mechanically represented by the gaining of conflict?

For players and GM's struggling with this a house rule where GM's track Good Conflict and Bad Conflict seperatly then only allow an increase in Morality if there has been positive gain? A D10 dice roll should still be a part of the system but I'm just trying to present the bare bones of a solution.

Honestly, in the 'no conflict, no roll scenario', I'd spend every gaming session spending exactly one DSP, to gain exactly 1 conflict, probably on something irrelevant.

The character probably views this the way the average person views cleaning the toilet. Unfun, but it has to be done.

Net Result: I get the same morality gain I have now, -1. I'll still get to Paragon pretty quick.

Which is why I suggest doing more that make your character feel emotionally good is required.

At the end of the day this is supposed to be a game mechanism that encourages a player to Role Play (not Roll Play) the emotional turmoil of their character. It's there to help a player think more about the emotional side of their PC and should be chosen at character creation based on something that a player finds interesting and wants to play and explore (just as every other choice is). Meta Gaming with an end goal of being either a LSP or falling to the Dark Side is a perfectly fine choice, but without a naration behind the actions this mechanic definitely seems broken. My personal feeling is that "sleeping" is a bit too MinMax or board game for my personal tastes (I do that in PC gaming not pen and paper)

This by the way is an issue with all three of the FFG SW Lines. Duty and Obligation can be stretched as well.

Honestly, in the 'no conflict, no roll scenario', I'd spend every gaming session spending exactly one DSP, to gain exactly 1 conflict, probably on something irrelevant.

The character probably views this the way the average person views cleaning the toilet. Unfun, but it has to be done.

Net Result: I get the same morality gain I have now, -1. I'll still get to Paragon pretty quick.

1. This is meta gaming and defeats the purpose of playing a narrative role playing game.

2. A good GM wouldn't allow it imo

Honestly, in the 'no conflict, no roll scenario', I'd spend every gaming session spending exactly one DSP, to gain exactly 1 conflict, probably on something irrelevant.

The character probably views this the way the average person views cleaning the toilet. Unfun, but it has to be done.

Net Result: I get the same morality gain I have now, -1. I'll still get to Paragon pretty quick.

1. This is meta gaming and defeats the purpose of playing a narrative role playing game.

2. A good GM wouldn't allow it imo

Not that I condone this type of gaming, but at some tables that's exactly how they play

Honestly, in the 'no conflict, no roll scenario', I'd spend every gaming session spending exactly one DSP, to gain exactly 1 conflict, probably on something irrelevant.

The character probably views this the way the average person views cleaning the toilet. Unfun, but it has to be done.

Net Result: I get the same morality gain I have now, -1. I'll still get to Paragon pretty quick.

1. This is meta gaming and defeats the purpose of playing a narrative role playing game.

2. A good GM wouldn't allow it imo

Not that I condone this type of gaming, but at some tables that's exactly how they play

But... you can´t.

You don´t know how much you´ll get, especially when playing with conflict through fear.

You may be some time get 1 Conflict through a DSP and think you´re over the hill, but later you´ll botch a Fear test and get 2-3 more, than maybe you do nothing when you should have and gain 1.

Normally, you should have not too much control if you´ll get conflict or not. It´s human. Nobody simply choses if he is a good or a bad guy.

And even if you don´t get a Conflict and then wait until the end of the session to make sure and THAN make a Force roll to generate a DSP to get a conflict... seriously, you should not play a Jedi.

If you know my few posts, you know I can get really critical about minor stuff.

But simply put, in my opinion the Morality system is fabulous.

It straves away from the one-dimensional "do evil stuff and you´ll get evil", it delves deeper into the conflict of right and wrong and everything between, it allows your character to be deeper because you don´t have to be a saint and first and foremost: It takes away a lot of control. In many other games I was disappointed that you are not really struggling to be good or bad, simply put, you choose. And then I don´t need a system for that.

If you are willing to commit to a struggling mechanic and go the difficult part about right and wrong, that system is great. When you´re not, you missing out the central theme of being a Jedi Knight.

Every time you use a DSP, no matter the reason, no matter the excuse...

You can image Sidious standing there in the corner going, "Good, Good my young apprentice. Use your aggressive feelings, boy! With every passing moment you become more my pupil. Let your Hatred flow through you..."

I don't see the point of that interpretation, it's far too extreme. Every little action becomes this epic moral test, the impact of which swings wildly from moment to moment. It completely removes the character and their moral test from the actual moral implications of the situation. It removes the player from responsibility over the state of mind of their character and you might as well not be roleplaying.

If you want to Force Move a jar of jam from the top shelf, that shouldn't involve an epic moral test, especially since you could just wait a minute and get an entirely different result. You're basically arguing that at 8:03AM, your character is too filled with hatred to get that jam; but at 8:04AM your character is completely at peace and it is the jam's Destiny to come down...

The Strain and DP flip are plenty enough of a penalty to represent the character wrestling with how they tap the Force and *not* giving in to the dark side. I wouldn't give Conflict for that.

Even I like your posts most of the time much, this time I have to disagree.

I would handle it different: If your Jedi wants to move a Jam Jar, I would not roll at all. If there´s no penality in failure and no time cap, I would not roll for using a Force Power at all.

DSP could represent Hate and Fear, but you can also find an additional interpretation, so an ordinary thing is not a epic moral choice: They could represent seduction of power. Let me paint it through the Jam Jar, even if I would not roll then:

The Jedi moves the Jar and takes 1-2 DSP. In a corner of his mind, he sees how he is superior, how awesome it is to move this Jar. Normal folks cannot do this. Maybe he should explore deeper, getting more awesome powers, because it feels good to use them. And there goes another Morality point... or three.

When it´s not appropriate to explain it through fear and hate, then through feeling raw, supernatural power. And when he then rolls at the end of the session, he could learn that this power should be used more cautiously... or that he should have more.

Additionally, I thought about putting away the flip and strain penality, making the seduction to use the points stronger for the player, but I am not clear about that now.

Ah, but that sort of thing requires a 'Gotcha!' GM. It leads to vicious arguments at the table as the Jedi Player argues with the GM as to why he shouldn't have gotten conflict for that. I've seen games end over the Paladin equivalent of falling without warning.

The wise GM warns when an action may generate conflict, lest he find himself without a player.

And actually, moving a Jam Jar with the Force leadng to the Dark Side? That was Tim Zahn's point in Hand of Thrawn. Before Luke proposes, Mara spends half the book nudging him out of the problem of doing exactly that, and it's a problem he doesn't even know he has.

So that idea is consistent with Legends/EU at least.

But simply put, in my opinion the Morality system is fabulous.

...for a game system.

It's fast, simple, elegant, resists gaming and captures the right level of granularity that the devs are going for I don't see how they could have made an objective Morality system any better. I continue to believe, going all the way back to last fall now, that the detractors simply haven't made the case for a better system. Making good rulesets is hard work, and the devs have put a lot of work into this, and it shows.

Now, having said all that, when it comes right down to it, I'm probably not going to use the Morality system RAW because I'll want it to flow more from than narrative than drive it, but that is just personal taste. Were I to play in a game that used some objective morality system, I'd want the one they're going with or one at least not too far from it.

Ah, but that sort of thing requires a 'Gotcha!' GM. It leads to vicious arguments at the table as the Jedi Player argues with the GM as to why he shouldn't have gotten conflict for that. I've seen games end over the Paladin equivalent of falling without warning.

I wouldn't call it a gotcha GM when a player is specifically metagaming something their actual character would have no real knowledge of to gain a systematic benefit. That's a good GM. They just end up having problems with players who want to manipulate the system rather than play it.

In this specific example, your character has absolutely no concept of the conflict and morality systems underlying the game. They have no reason to consider the idea of 'I should tap into the darkside just a little bit when it doesn't really matter in order to better walk the path of the light'.. so someone consistently expending just one DSP for this reason creates reasonable ground for the GM to start asking WHY their character feels the need to tap into the darkside in that specific instance.

...I must also add I've never spent a Dark Side Point when one was rolled. I just let the power fail and move on.

Maybe the Devs have said otherwise, but I was under the impression in every game I've played thus far spending DSPs made one a terrible Jedi.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

Seriously. Bringing baggage from other games makes this game so much less enjoyable.

Actually, that GM gave me a flat out +10 morality bonus doing that.

"...You've cited Yoda correctly. That's exactly what your supposed to do."

His rule is "If you can back up your action with something Yoda, Obi Wan, or another famous jedi actually said in a movie (Anakin doesn't count, but Luke does....) you gain morality."

As a GM, that resolution would strike me as adherence to the letter but ignoring the spirit of the Code. It's the same as a lawful good Paladin refusing to break the law to accomplish a greater good. And it's not even like "killing a baby." It's more like "trespassing on someone's property to save a dying innocent." Compassion, I would argue, is at the heart of any good law. And acting without compassion is absolutely conflict-worthy in my game.

You're familiar with Jacen Solo's progression to Darth Caedus, yes, fellow EU junkie? At the beginning of the novel Betrayal, Jacen is rationalizing all these deaths that he's causing in light-side-Jedi terms. He's defending himself and Ben, and he basically tells himself that it's not a big deal that he's sending all these people shooting at him to their deaths. There is no death, there is the Force.

And then all throughout that series he kept praising Palpatine, of all people, for his adherence to the law, and how he went about gaining power through the appropriate channels. Eventually Jacen reaches the conclusion that the Rebel Alliance were the bad guys for breaking the law and throwing the galaxy into a Civil War. He slowly corrupted himself through his thought processes, all the while telling himself that he was the good guy. And finally he was able to drop all pretenses, divorce himself completely of the Jedi Code, and begin to act with impunity as a Sith Lord.

Someone here already mentioned Atris from KotOR II. This is another example of someone who has striven so hard to maintain the Jedi Order that she has completely lost sight of its heart.

I'm reading a lot of "playing the game", but not a lot of "playing the character".

If your play is dictated by the Force Dice pips and the Conflict chart in the game, then you are not really playing. Sure, doing your best to avoid Conflict is good, but one can not avoid all Conflict. It almost feels like some are playing the system.

As for LSP creep, GM's should be doing a good job of introducing 'Conflict Generating Situations" for their Force Users. Not saying Conflict at every turn, but a Force User in a EotE part should be seeing some "Knowingly Inactive" Conflict for the party dealing in harmful/illegal goods.

To play devil's advocate to the above, playing the character is, to some degree, a bit of playing to the numbers (e.g., "this is what my character is good at," "my character knows that this Formidable difficulty task would be really difficulty," "my character senses the conflict inherent in this situation," and so on).

To play devil's advocate to the above, playing the character is, to some degree, a bit of playing to the numbers (e.g., "this is what my character is good at," "my character knows that this Formidable difficulty task would be really difficulty," "my character senses the conflict inherent in this situation," and so on).

I understand where you're coming from. We know how the mechanics will befall our characters and know that our action swill have a consequence, etc.... But I feel some see the Conflict chart as 'this is how you play your character'. It becomes their code. It becomes their personality. Seeing all the D&D references, maybe they feel like 1 DSP is ruin for their character. Instead of using the Conflict chart to dictate actions, use it to finalize consequences. Put the Conflict chart last, not first, in the character's "action thought process:.

The Morality system allows for good and bad actions to happen without an instant fall from grace like with Paladins.

I'd also add that the beta book says the Morality mechanic does the following:

>> Model how good or evil the character is

The beta acknowledges that there is some gray but in the Star Wars setting most things are black/white, right/wrong.

In other words it's an objective morality system.

>> Prevent arguments between GM and Player about what is and isn't good/evil or deserving Conflict

This is accomplished by a specific set of guidelines and a chart.

This chart lists actions or inactions and how much Conflict to award.

It also mentions character intent should be taken into consideration in how much Conflict is awarded.

I'd agree with the sentiment that Morality is not a measure of how well a character hews to the Jedi Code (though a character living the Jedi Code will get little Conflict) it's also not a measure of personal internal conflict - it's primarily a measure of how good or evil your character is by how they act. Personal internal conflict can modulate how much Conflict is awarded and it may be a reason why your character acts or doesn't act.

(since the quoting system on these forums blows chunks....)

ShiKage's line of "The point of the Morality system isn't 'did you follow the Jedi code' it is about 'did you suffer from an personal internal conflict because of that choice'" pretty much hits the nail on the head.

The prequels themselves show that the Jedi Order weren't 100% correct in how things should be done. They had become victims of their own success, more concerned with the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law in regards to the Jedi Code. Ultimately, the Jedi Code is a series of suggested guidelines rather than a strict doctrine, a way to live while being in tune with the galaxy in a way that will minimize the internal conflict one might feel. In terms of attachments, the Jedi Order on a whole was hypocritical, since they were attached to a Republic that had pretty much failed and were spending all their effort propping up a corrupt Senate, especially during the Clone Wars. Anakin was supposed to be something of a wake-up call that the Jedi only heard when it was much too late.

Even Kenobi, who has been used for decades as the measuring stick for what a model Jedi should be, is not infallible. His line in RotJ about "a certain point of view" regarding Anakin's fate has been rightly called a falsehood, a lie told to a young man that wasn't even remotely close to being ready for the heavy burden of the truth.

For Yoda on Dagobah, it's easy for him to preach a certain set of ideals because he's completely removed himself from the galaxy and is only watching from the sidelines; he's very much being an armchair quarterback while Luke is the one that's actually out there on the field. It's easy to preach a set of rules on how to live, especially when you've removed oneself from all temptation like Yoda did and become an isolated hermit.

If anyone out of the six films really had a clue on how to act in regards to being both a Jedi and a decent human being, it was Qui-Gon Jinn. He was willing to bend if not break the rules to do the right thing, but within limits. Yes, he tried to mind-trick Watto, but that was only to get the merchant to accept the form of currency that Qui-Gon had, but it should also be noted that Qui-Gon was willing to pay a fair price for those parts; if Watto had said "sure, I'll take Republic credits, but it'll cost you a bit more," Qui-Gon would have shrugged off the increased price and said "okay, here you go." It's questionable if he used a full mind-trick or just a bit of Force-enhanced suggestion to get Boss Nass to provide his group with a transport, but he only did that after explaining his reason for being on Naboo and learning the Gungans wanted nothing to do with the human residents of Naboo, and made it a point to politely thank Nass for his help. He certainly didn't have to help Jar-Jar, and Obi-Wan was quite willing to leave the fool behind, but Qui-Gon stuck his neck out for the guy, figuring that some help from one of the locals was better than none and probably also disagreeing with the idea that Jar-Jar should be punished simply for trying to help a couple of off-worlders. He probably would have been just enough of a rule-breaker (from the POV of the stodgy and hide-bound Council) to have been able to properly train Anakin and address the uniqueness of the boy's situation in contrast to how Jedi had been trained for centuries, helping Anakin to work through his fears and worries instead of just reciting platitudes and telling him to ignore those feelings the way Obi-Wan had.

I agree with you on Qui-gon Jinn - he was a good person and a good Jedi who was willing to ignore the Jedi Code on occasion if he felt the Living Force was leading him somewhere else. The danger in this approach is that it can lead to the very rationalization awayputurwpn was talking about. I think this is partly the attitude that Anakin adopted in falling - Sidious offered him power to do something he *needed* to do and was convinced was for the best and the Jedi were holding him back from it (and Sidious had effectively convinced Anakin that the Jedi were themselves corrupt, not just the Republic). So, it takes a character of strong, uh, character to walk the line as well as Qui-gon did. I'd even argue that Qui-gon was a light side Paragon, yet the path he took is hard for "most" to follow (and of course PCs are free to play it how they wish and the player can easily decide their PC has what it takes to walk the same path, though playing a PC who does rationalize their way away from the light side is a valid choice as well).

The danger of being too dogmatic with the Jedi Code is that you're focusing more on it than the Force and what is right/wrong in a specific instance right now.

I'd also note that the Jedi Council - against the counsel of Yoda - decided to buck tradition and "allow" Anakin to be trained (though it's interesting that it's implied in The Phantom Menace that Obi-wan could have taken any apprentice he wanted despite the counsel, and that Qui-gon's bigger barrier to taking on Anakin as a Padawan wasn't Anakin's age but the fact Qui-gon already had an apprentice. Whether this is due to a well thought out Jedi tradition by Lucas or just the needs of the story who knows...).

And Yoda was basically right in his counsel to Luke - Luke didn't really help Han/Leia escape Cloud City "negating" their sacrifice and Luke suffered greatly for it.

I don't think Yoda was as unjustifiably stuck to the Jedi Code - he'd trained Jedi for 900 years and had seen it work over and over again. He was correct in his fears with Anakin being trained (though I do agree and have always thought that Qui-gon would have made a much better master to Anakin, perhaps good enough to have prevented Anakin from falling).

He saw a similar rashness in Luke and felt Luke wasn't far along enough in his training to confront a fully trained Jedi Knight/Sith Lord on not only a physical level but on a "spiritual" level either. Luke had not attained the calmness nor the control of the Force Yoda felt he needed to do so (in my opinion).

But there's a lot of room for interpretation of the what's the best balance for the Jedi Order and on a personal PC level what the character approach to all of this stuff is and I think F&D and the Morality/Strength/Weakness mechanic gives a great mechanical hook for it.

Actually, that GM gave me a flat out +10 morality bonus doing that.

"...You've cited Yoda correctly. That's exactly what your supposed to do."

His rule is "If you can back up your action with something Yoda, Obi Wan, or another famous jedi actually said in a movie (Anakin doesn't count, but Luke does....) you gain morality."

As a GM, that resolution would strike me as adherence to the letter but ignoring the spirit of the Code. It's the same as a lawful good Paladin refusing to break the law to accomplish a greater good. And it's not even like "killing a baby." It's more like "trespassing on someone's property to save a dying innocent." Compassion, I would argue, is at the heart of any good law. And acting without compassion is absolutely conflict-worthy in my game.

You're familiar with Jacen Solo's progression to Darth Caedus, yes, fellow EU junkie? At the beginning of the novel Betrayal, Jacen is rationalizing all these deaths that he's causing in light-side-Jedi terms. He's defending himself and Ben, and he basically tells himself that it's not a big deal that he's sending all these people shooting at him to their deaths. There is no death, there is the Force.

And then all throughout that series he kept praising Palpatine, of all people, for his adherence to the law, and how he went about gaining power through the appropriate channels. Eventually Jacen reaches the conclusion that the Rebel Alliance were the bad guys for breaking the law and throwing the galaxy into a Civil War. He slowly corrupted himself through his thought processes, all the while telling himself that he was the good guy. And finally he was able to drop all pretenses, divorce himself completely of the Jedi Code, and begin to act with impunity as a Sith Lord.

Someone here already mentioned Atris from KotOR II. This is another example of someone who has striven so hard to maintain the Jedi Order that she has completely lost sight of its heart.

That's a great point.

It's also what makes for a great villain. A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing. Even Sidious, who is perhaps a villain who does view himself as evil views the Jedi and their Code as limiting and naive. Ultimately, I think the Sith perspective is that they are following and amplifying and "serving" the natural order of things and that any other path is foolish. As Sidious tempted Anakin - the Jedi have a dogmatic and narrow view of the Force that limits them and blinds them to reality.

The Jedi Code has it's flaws but it does act as a counter to rationalizations that lead to the dark side.

This is partly why I like the Qui-gon so much as a character - he didn't ignore the Jedi Code on occasion because he was rebellious but when the Living Force told him to go another way. I think Qui-gon is a good example of putting the "Will of the Force" before a Code. The Code may contain wisdom accumulated over millennia but the entire point of the Code is to guide a Jedi away from the dark side and it doesn't take the place of listening to the Force.

A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing.

This reminds me of another idea I had for Morality: use the objective system per RAW, however, no one knows their exact score -- the GM keeps track of it all in a hidden fashion. Moreover, no one even has a feel for their current rating, only the rating of their fellows.

At any time, a player can ask for his relative ranking to anyone else, but that's it. A might have a vague sense that B's Morality is significantly lower than his own and that C's is somewhat higher than his, but A has no sense of his own score (beyond what the players themselves can mentally keep track of). The result is that everyone gets a general, but completely unquantifiable feeling of their relative morality but no clear sense of the absolute, sorta like real life...

A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing.

This reminds me of another idea I had for Morality: use the objective system per RAW, however, no one knows their exact score -- the GM keeps track of it all in a hidden fashion. Moreover, no one even has a feel for their current rating, only the rating of their fellows.

At any time, a player can ask for his relative ranking to anyone else, but that's it. A might have a vague sense that B's Morality is significantly lower than his own and that C's is somewhat higher than his, but A has no sense of his own score (beyond what the players themselves can mentally keep track of). The result is that everyone gets a general, but completely unquantifiable feeling of their relative morality but no clear sense of the absolute, sorta like real life...

That's a pretty interesting idea Lorne.

it would certainly remove a significant portion of the meta-gaming out of Morality, since the PC won't know whether those next few Conflict points will be enough to push them to the dark side or not, especially if they've been pretty cavalier with things like using dark side pips to generate Force points or being a bit more excessive with the violence than the situation might require. Or if a really bad result on a Fear check (something that it seems a number of GMs tend to overlook, myself included) could generate Conflict as well if a Despair result comes up.

That said, the one possible drawback I see is that not knowing their current Morality scores might lead players to act even more like a bunch of Lawful Good Paladins and shy away from any sort of action that might generate Conflict.

Admittedly, one sure way to know where your PC stands is if they reach the higher/lower ends of the Morality spectrum, and start getting the adjustments to their wound and strain thresholds.

Actually, that GM gave me a flat out +10 morality bonus doing that.

"...You've cited Yoda correctly. That's exactly what your supposed to do."

His rule is "If you can back up your action with something Yoda, Obi Wan, or another famous jedi actually said in a movie (Anakin doesn't count, but Luke does....) you gain morality."

As a GM, that resolution would strike me as adherence to the letter but ignoring the spirit of the Code. It's the same as a lawful good Paladin refusing to break the law to accomplish a greater good. And it's not even like "killing a baby." It's more like "trespassing on someone's property to save a dying innocent." Compassion, I would argue, is at the heart of any good law. And acting without compassion is absolutely conflict-worthy in my game.

You're familiar with Jacen Solo's progression to Darth Caedus, yes, fellow EU junkie? At the beginning of the novel Betrayal, Jacen is rationalizing all these deaths that he's causing in light-side-Jedi terms. He's defending himself and Ben, and he basically tells himself that it's not a big deal that he's sending all these people shooting at him to their deaths. There is no death, there is the Force.

And then all throughout that series he kept praising Palpatine, of all people, for his adherence to the law, and how he went about gaining power through the appropriate channels. Eventually Jacen reaches the conclusion that the Rebel Alliance were the bad guys for breaking the law and throwing the galaxy into a Civil War. He slowly corrupted himself through his thought processes, all the while telling himself that he was the good guy. And finally he was able to drop all pretenses, divorce himself completely of the Jedi Code, and begin to act with impunity as a Sith Lord.

Someone here already mentioned Atris from KotOR II. This is another example of someone who has striven so hard to maintain the Jedi Order that she has completely lost sight of its heart.

That's a great point.

It's also what makes for a great villain. A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing. Even Sidious, who is perhaps a villain who does view himself as evil views the Jedi and their Code as limiting and naive. Ultimately, I think the Sith perspective is that they are following and amplifying and "serving" the natural order of things and that any other path is foolish. As Sidious tempted Anakin - the Jedi have a dogmatic and narrow view of the Force that limits them and blinds them to reality.

The Jedi Code has it's flaws but it does act as a counter to rationalizations that lead to the dark side.

This is partly why I like the Qui-gon so much as a character - he didn't ignore the Jedi Code on occasion because he was rebellious but when the Living Force told him to go another way. I think Qui-gon is a good example of putting the "Will of the Force" before a Code. The Code may contain wisdom accumulated over millennia but the entire point of the Code is to guide a Jedi away from the dark side and it doesn't take the place of listening to the Force.

Like any other grouping of rules, The Code may've been, at one time, a loose collection of stories and ideas that become formalized to define the duties and responsibilities of an organization and members of that organization. But like most of these rulesets, as it is debated and rewritten and edited, it becomes more and more rigid and self-serving and becomes less about serving the people under the Code and all about the Code itself. There may certainly be wisdom hidden amongst it's many ripples and folds, but that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule by this time in the universe. Diverging from the Code should definitely be cause for a conflict point, because the character is pulling away from something that, assuming they are on the Jedi path, they've been taught and had ingrained in themselves for years by this time. Depending on how far the deviation should determine the conflict. OTOH, if a character is not trying to live up to any such Code and is an independent force user, then there's no conflict for moving away from something they've never been taught or don't believe in. But none of that means that they start to turn to the dark side - the idea that questioning your motivations and ideals pulls you down a path of evil is a bit suspect, IMHO.