I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

Hmm. Being the sort of guy who absolutely will not use dark pips ever (what's that? You're falling to your death? Better roll up a new character then, cause the Force doesn't like you ), I usually RPed Dark Pips as getting a terrible headache as I fought the Dark Side off. "The Dark Side is strong here" he'd say whenever those black pips showed up.

The lack of a light pip was always played as 'nothing happened.' Trying to use move without a light pip means you were as powerful as Han Solo that turn.

And if you flipped a pip....that wasn't done at that table. Flipping a pip was something only Anakin Skywalker and Jacen Solo did. (and Darth Vader frequently converted Light Pips. Maul, Dooku, and Sidious wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole)

In short, imagine a world where flipping a pip is 10 points of conflict, and you've got the general idea.

If I was running a game and a PC had that attitude - "I could save you but I'd have to gain 1 Conflict, so you die because I need to stay aboslutely pure and free of fear, anger, whatever so you die, and it's probably the will of the Force anyway" I would grant the PC 10 Conflict. At least.

What's more selfish than letting someone die so you don't have to feel even a moment's fear/anger/etc while using a Force Power?

I find it odd that to you letting someone die is perfectly in line with the Light Side of the force, but gaining 1 Conflict is a horror to be avoided at all costs. To me the moral balance of "someone is going to die right now" vs "gaining low amounts of Conflict may in an unlikely and long sequence of events lead me close to the dark side at some vague time in the future" isn't even close.

I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

That's an excellent point.

I was confusing two separate issues.

Lucas' view on Vader's loss of connection to the force is really behind-the-scenes and not really brought out directly in the story.

I do think it makes a certain amount of sense though - but for me the more significant factor in lessening a characters connection to the force has less to do with amputated limbs and more to do with so much damage that life-support is constantly needed to keep them alive.

I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

Also, Obi Wan is only one point of view. He's done a lot of dickish things if you watch TCW and been called out on hypocrisy by Duchess Satine. And it can be argued that he has a certain prejudice towards machines with little comments like "if droids could think..." and he makes more than one reference to wiping R2's memory and admonishes Anakin for putting faith in a droid. He would never say the same of putting faith in another Jedi. He's something of a meat fascist, tbh.

There are elements within the canon media that can be construed as cybernetics representing someone's fall from humanity, though it's not something I greatly like. But I think they're small and I don't think they justify saying someone actually is less of a living being. I'm surprised you didn't pick Grevious as your example, actually, as he represents a much stronger thematic case for artificial parts, though he's not a Force user so that may make sense. Anyway, Obi Wan has especially strong feelings about Anakin given that Anakin is both responsible for the deaths of many close to Obi Wan AND personally represent's Obi Wan's failure as a teacher and father figure. Whatever George Lucas may have said outside of the actual canon sources, I tend to ignore that. There's a lot of bad things down that path.

Hmm. Being the sort of guy who absolutely will not use dark pips ever (what's that? You're falling to your death? Better roll up a new character then, cause the Force doesn't like you ), I usually RPed Dark Pips as getting a terrible headache as I fought the Dark Side off. "The Dark Side is strong here" he'd say whenever those black pips showed up.

The lack of a light pip was always played as 'nothing happened.' Trying to use move without a light pip means you were as powerful as Han Solo that turn.

And if you flipped a pip....that wasn't done at that table. Flipping a pip was something only Anakin Skywalker and Jacen Solo did. (and Darth Vader frequently converted Light Pips. Maul, Dooku, and Sidious wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole)

In short, imagine a world where flipping a pip is 10 points of conflict, and you've got the general idea.

If I was running a game and a PC had that attitude - "I could save you but I'd have to gain 1 Conflict, so you die because I need to stay aboslutely pure and free of fear, anger, whatever so you die, and it's probably the will of the Force anyway" I would grant the PC 10 Conflict. At least.

What's more selfish than letting someone die so you don't have to feel even a moment's fear/anger/etc while using a Force Power?

Probably not much. But to Jedi teaching it would likely be the right thing to do. They preach against attachment all the time. They would tell the padawan that they failed to save the person because their mind wasn't clear enough, that they tried instead of doing, etc. Not that they should have let their fear of loss or anger at the unfairness of it lend them strength.

That said, whilst I wouldn't give the character Conflict for it as that's kind of a mean trap (you're getting Conflict, you have no choice), I would merrily hand the player of the deceased PC the core rule book with which to batter the Force PC's player for being so absurdly disproportionate about how they played. One Conflict point is kind of eating a cookie that you were going to save for someone else level of dark.

I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

Also, Obi Wan is only one point of view. He's done a lot of dickish things if you watch TCW and been called out on hypocrisy by Duchess Satine. And it can be argued that he has a certain prejudice towards machines with little comments like "if droids could think..." and he makes more than one reference to wiping R2's memory and admonishes Anakin for putting faith in a droid. He would never say the same of putting faith in another Jedi. He's something of a meat fascist, tbh.

There are elements within the canon media that can be construed as cybernetics representing someone's fall from humanity, though it's not something I greatly like. But I think they're small and I don't think they justify saying someone actually is less of a living being. I'm surprised you didn't pick Grevious as your example, actually, as he represents a much stronger thematic case for artificial parts, though he's not a Force user so that may make sense. Anyway, Obi Wan has especially strong feelings about Anakin given that Anakin is both responsible for the deaths of many close to Obi Wan AND personally represent's Obi Wan's failure as a teacher and father figure. Whatever George Lucas may have said outside of the actual canon sources, I tend to ignore that. There's a lot of bad things down that path.

As for Obi-wan's attitudes towards droids and other such issues (like the Jedi attitude towards the clone troopers etc)...I don't think Star Wars is a very good setting for exploring these kinds of themes more common in sci-fi because Star Wars is fantasy with "futuristic" aesthetics (e.g., a space opera). I don't think Star Wars was desinged to do this very well - and I think it shows up in how characters act or don't react to certain things just thrown into the setting (i.e., the clone troopers were, I'm guessing, thrown in to the setting because Lucas needed a large army to appear out of nowhere and there wasn't much consideration of the moral implications of it...because Space Opera!). It was created to be a racous and fast paced adventure that had mythic themes in it.

Grievous is another great example I missed.

I think it's something that's been fairly consistently put into the setting but I don't think it's essential to the setting so it can be easily discarded.

Though, I'd note again, that the examples where loss of humanity is tied to cybernetics has been at the extreme end of things - with near total cyborg replacement or cybernetics being required to sustain life.

Lucas is interesting - to me anyway - but there's no need to adhere to his ideas. Or canon for that matter.

That's one thing that's great about RPGs - you can make it the way you like it.

I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

Also, Obi Wan is only one point of view. He's done a lot of dickish things if you watch TCW and been called out on hypocrisy by Duchess Satine. And it can be argued that he has a certain prejudice towards machines with little comments like "if droids could think..." and he makes more than one reference to wiping R2's memory and admonishes Anakin for putting faith in a droid. He would never say the same of putting faith in another Jedi. He's something of a meat fascist, tbh.

There are elements within the canon media that can be construed as cybernetics representing someone's fall from humanity, though it's not something I greatly like. But I think they're small and I don't think they justify saying someone actually is less of a living being. I'm surprised you didn't pick Grevious as your example, actually, as he represents a much stronger thematic case for artificial parts, though he's not a Force user so that may make sense. Anyway, Obi Wan has especially strong feelings about Anakin given that Anakin is both responsible for the deaths of many close to Obi Wan AND personally represent's Obi Wan's failure as a teacher and father figure. Whatever George Lucas may have said outside of the actual canon sources, I tend to ignore that. There's a lot of bad things down that path.

As for Obi-wan's attitudes towards droids and other such issues (like the Jedi attitude towards the clone troopers etc)...I don't think Star Wars is a very good setting for exploring these kinds of themes more common in sci-fi because Star Wars is fantasy with "futuristic" aesthetics (e.g., a space opera). I don't think Star Wars was desinged to do this very well - and I think it shows up in how characters act or don't react to certain things just thrown into the setting (i.e., the clone troopers were, I'm guessing, thrown in to the setting because Lucas needed a large army to appear out of nowhere and there wasn't much consideration of the moral implications of it...because Space Opera!). It was created to be a racous and fast paced adventure that had mythic themes in it.

Grievous is another great example I missed.

I think it's something that's been fairly consistently put into the setting but I don't think it's essential to the setting so it can be easily discarded.

Though, I'd note again, that the examples where loss of humanity is tied to cybernetics has been at the extreme end of things - with near total cyborg replacement or cybernetics being required to sustain life.

Lucas is interesting - to me anyway - but there's no need to adhere to his ideas. Or canon for that matter.

That's one thing that's great about RPGs - you can make it the way you like it.

I agree with much of what you say but I think you also see my point of view. So that's fine.

In relation to what you wrote generally about depth and how suitable Star Wars is for exploring this sort of stuff, I have to give a shout out to TCW for how they added far more than first appears in this regard. When I watched the first episodes, I actually posted here saying how it seemed to me that the Jedi were actually the bad guys in many ways and I asked if the creators were actually that blind to the contrast between what they did objectively and how it was presented. And several people replied with "wait and see..." and it's remarkable how subtle some of the themes in TCW really are. It really highlights a lot of flaws of the protagonists whilst rarely dropping the superficial façade of heroic jedi and clones. There are a lot of really dark, even chilling elements in that series.

Incidentally, on-topic, there's a scene in the Lair of Grevious episode where they're walking down a corridor and there are a series of statues of this heroic warrior. And each successive statue has one more cybernetic part until they finally realize they're staring at the life of General Grevious. If you want an explicit scene of replacement of nature with machine equating to a moral descent, that's the scene you're looking for.

But I'm still glad to see Rebels refute the idea that disability separates you from the Force and all that implies. Someone above (not sure if it was you) said that it wasn't only that Vader had lost limbs, but that he required life support to live. Well so do a lot of people. That describes Stephen Hawking and a lot of other less famous but equally human real people. It's a really repugnant notion to say that someone has less of a soul if they become disabled, but that is what people make the SW setting say when the introduce an element such as Vader losing his connection to the Force due to loss of limbs. I think it's pretty reasonable for me to dislike that. Especially as Rebels and some of the novels plainly show it's not true.

It was a second hand recounting, but one of the devs pointedly said that there was a reason why the chart in the above post never made it into the core line of products.

It likely got dropped as the designers realized during the EotE Beta testing that you didn't need such extremes to be a capable and proficient Force user, especially as it's generally cheaper to spend the XP to purchase the various upgrades than to keep buying specializations to boost one's Force Rating.

I've seen PCs be very effective with Force Rating 2 and the Move power simply by virtue of spending XP on multiple upgrades for Move rather than trying to force their way into being able to trigger the few upgrades they did purchase multiple times. Much easier to lift 3 speeder bikes at long range if you've spent the XP for 2 Magnitude Upgrades, 2 Range Upgrades, and 2 Strength Upgrades than it is if you've only both 1 of each upgrade.

In a lot of cases, once you've it Force Rating 3, a PC is at the point where they can pretty reliably activate any Force power and two upgrades of their choice, especially if they don't mind using a dark side pip every so often.

I've always read "More machine now than man" as a negative comment on Vader's lack of humanity, not a comment on his physical ability to access the Force. It's a bad thing to be a cold-hearted killing machine and Ob-Wan is right to judge him as one, regardless of whether or not his connection to the Force is limited. The condemnation is moral, not mechanical. You're right about Luke noting the artificial hand, but again he's not thinking, "Uh-oh. If I go down this path I'll lose my power."

Also, Obi Wan is only one point of view. He's done a lot of dickish things if you watch TCW and been called out on hypocrisy by Duchess Satine. And it can be argued that he has a certain prejudice towards machines with little comments like "if droids could think..." and he makes more than one reference to wiping R2's memory and admonishes Anakin for putting faith in a droid. He would never say the same of putting faith in another Jedi. He's something of a meat fascist, tbh.

There are elements within the canon media that can be construed as cybernetics representing someone's fall from humanity, though it's not something I greatly like. But I think they're small and I don't think they justify saying someone actually is less of a living being. I'm surprised you didn't pick Grevious as your example, actually, as he represents a much stronger thematic case for artificial parts, though he's not a Force user so that may make sense. Anyway, Obi Wan has especially strong feelings about Anakin given that Anakin is both responsible for the deaths of many close to Obi Wan AND personally represent's Obi Wan's failure as a teacher and father figure. Whatever George Lucas may have said outside of the actual canon sources, I tend to ignore that. There's a lot of bad things down that path.

As for Obi-wan's attitudes towards droids and other such issues (like the Jedi attitude towards the clone troopers etc)...I don't think Star Wars is a very good setting for exploring these kinds of themes more common in sci-fi because Star Wars is fantasy with "futuristic" aesthetics (e.g., a space opera). I don't think Star Wars was desinged to do this very well - and I think it shows up in how characters act or don't react to certain things just thrown into the setting (i.e., the clone troopers were, I'm guessing, thrown in to the setting because Lucas needed a large army to appear out of nowhere and there wasn't much consideration of the moral implications of it...because Space Opera!). It was created to be a racous and fast paced adventure that had mythic themes in it.

Grievous is another great example I missed.

I think it's something that's been fairly consistently put into the setting but I don't think it's essential to the setting so it can be easily discarded.

Though, I'd note again, that the examples where loss of humanity is tied to cybernetics has been at the extreme end of things - with near total cyborg replacement or cybernetics being required to sustain life.

Lucas is interesting - to me anyway - but there's no need to adhere to his ideas. Or canon for that matter.

That's one thing that's great about RPGs - you can make it the way you like it.

I agree with much of what you say but I think you also see my point of view. So that's fine.

In relation to what you wrote generally about depth and how suitable Star Wars is for exploring this sort of stuff, I have to give a shout out to TCW for how they added far more than first appears in this regard. When I watched the first episodes, I actually posted here saying how it seemed to me that the Jedi were actually the bad guys in many ways and I asked if the creators were actually that blind to the contrast between what they did objectively and how it was presented. And several people replied with "wait and see..." and it's remarkable how subtle some of the themes in TCW really are. It really highlights a lot of flaws of the protagonists whilst rarely dropping the superficial façade of heroic jedi and clones. There are a lot of really dark, even chilling elements in that series.

Incidentally, on-topic, there's a scene in the Lair of Grevious episode where they're walking down a corridor and there are a series of statues of this heroic warrior. And each successive statue has one more cybernetic part until they finally realize they're staring at the life of General Grevious. If you want an explicit scene of replacement of nature with machine equating to a moral descent, that's the scene you're looking for.

But I'm still glad to see Rebels refute the idea that disability separates you from the Force and all that implies. Someone above (not sure if it was you) said that it wasn't only that Vader had lost limbs, but that he required life support to live. Well so do a lot of people. That describes Stephen Hawking and a lot of other less famous but equally human real people. It's a really repugnant notion to say that someone has less of a soul if they become disabled, but that is what people make the SW setting say when the introduce an element such as Vader losing his connection to the Force due to loss of limbs. I think it's pretty reasonable for me to dislike that. Especially as Rebels and some of the novels plainly show it's not true.

I agree with your main point that it's a repugnant notion to say that some is less of a person because of a disability.

(Though disagree that the Jedi come out that badly in TCW...but that's a topic for another day =)

I guess I just don't see these themes in Star Wars as saying that.

One reason why is that genres like Star Wars used a visual representation to indicate something internal - like good cowboys wear white hats and evil cowboys wear black hats. So, like your example with Grievous, the more his soul becomes corrupted the more his "body" becomes corrupted and it's the same for Vader. I don't think this is a general statement about disability and the state of ones soul but it's just a tool of the genre at work. In general this tool could be seen as repugnant as it basically says you can judge someone's character and morality just by looking at them but it's just a way of quickly and easily conveying important information in a visual medium and isn't trying to make some deeper point.

As for disability affecting the connection to the force...as said previously I agree that this is s separate issue than moral decline. A disiability is just that - a loss of ability of some sort. Maybe for many disabilities this can be overcome or compensated by technology or therapy or whatever but not the loss of connection to the force (at least according to Lucas, which everyone is free to toss out the window) and I don't think the loss of connection to the force is indicative of a moral decline. I also don't equate connection to the force as the same as the content of someone's character - a loss of connection to the force would probably be imperceptible in someone who wasn't Force Sensitive and highly trained.

Vader isn't evil because he's in an iron lung but because he does evil things. The iron lung just means he's not as powerful in using the force as he would otherwise be.

[NOTE: I'm behind on Rebels, waiting for it to be released on disc before watching it, so I'm not familiar with your reference to a counter-theme in Rebels].

And I agree that if you find something offensive in a theme then it's reasonable for you to remove it from your games or the setting as you see it.

When I was younger, I always thought that because Vader had robotic limbs that he has a harder time using them to interact with the force. Droids are immune to non-physical effects, and they cannot use the Force. Vader is a person, but for him, focusing the Force through his robotic parts is like trying to type with numb hands. He can, but he can't do it as well ashe may have.

That notion holds with me now, and I think that having a handicap is just that - a handicap.

My oldest friend, though, has always maintained it was the suit. He's not in connection with the universe anymore, he's in a vacuum now, listening and feeling the vibrations of the Force through a barrier.

Vader is looking through a keyhole in a door to see the universe, he's got his hands on a wall, and feeling the vibrations of actions on the other side, and his influence of these actions, because of the wall which is his required suit, hamper him.

I toy with both ideas from time to time.

For what it's worth, I read an interview with George Lucas some years ago (around the time of the prequel trilogy, I think) where he was asked point blank why Vader doesn't use Force lightning. His answer was "because he has cybernetic hands". The Emperor using Force lightning and Vader not isn't a coincidence, it was deliberately done that way.

I'm not saying there should be a rule that reflects this or that people can't do whatever they want in their campaigns, but it might be useful to know if for no other reason than it gives a piece of insight into how the Force works in-universe.

I think that you might be reading into it a bit too much. Arguing that a connection with the force is what makes a sentient a sentient (or human in your example) would be taken to it's logical conclusion that non force sensitives are less of a being (or human).

I'm in the camp that having cybernetics means that you loose some connection with the force. The more cybernetics, the less connection. But that in no way implies that someone with cybernetics (or missing limbs in the real world) is any less of a sentient (or human). It simply means that they can't connect with the force as well, and not because something of theirs is missing but because something is replaced. I think it's safe to say that cybernetics require some nerves to be connected into or replaced by wires. Effectively installing an artificial nervous system. That system can't feel the force so it lessens a sentient's ability to feel the force.

For example, a sentient get's his arm cut off. He can still use the force just as well as before. But give him a cybernetic arm and now his use of the force is slightly diminished because he's using a partially artificial nervous system. His arm is there, he can feel it, move it, use it and feel through it, except for the force. Having no arm is one thing, having an arm that is completely numb would interfere with even routine tasks. A sentient with no arm still has a 100% natural nervous system. But with an artificial limb they are now at 80% natural and 20% artificial (for completely made up numbers). Similarly, if a sentient force user had a 2nd set of cybernetic arms installed it would interfere with his use of the force.

Now all of this is how I look at things from a story view. FFG has clearly set things up so that cybernetics don't reduce force user's connection to the force.

Well...

Cybernetics definitely slowed Vader down.

However, the loss of a hand doesn't slow Luke down at all.

Maybe there's a threshold, or Luke dodges it by channeling the Force through his left all the time. I dunno.

Why do cybernetics reduce one's connection to the Force? I suppose I see two main arguments:

A.) The Force is biological. The injury itself is the problem and a loss of limb is the loss of midichlorians, taking away one's connection to the Force.

B.) The Force is natural. Adding robotics is not only a representation of one's moral decline, but actually creates unnatural beings (cyborgs) that are separated (at least partially) from the Force. This would allow an armless Force wielder, but she loses power by seeking treatment because the treatment fundamentally changes how she interacts with the universe.

Argument A, it should be obvious, is nonsense. Yoda's strength in the Force shows that "size matters not." Argument B has more hope, but I think Luke counters it fairly clearly. He is in no way hampered by the loss of his hand. We can argue that his maximum potential was limited, but as that's never seen onscreen I don't think that's a fair argument to make.

Alternatively, I prefer the implication that the Force is spiritual. Jedi Knight's believe in an old religion and access the Force through meditation and training. This isn't something you lose when you get chopped up, unless that chopping warps your mind and turns you to the Dark Side.

Considering how powerful EU Luke is, I'm not convinced he was limited. He's passed Dark Empire Palpatine on the road of the Force pretty handily, and isn't surpassed himself by anything short of the Ones of Mortis or Abeloth (who is technically a One of Mortis, 'Mother.')

Considering how powerful EU Luke is, I'm not convinced he was limited. He's passed Dark Empire Palpatine on the road of the Force pretty handily, and isn't surpassed himself by anything short of the Ones of Mortis or Abeloth (who is technically a One of Mortis, 'Mother.')

Several posts about this so I'm just going to make a general reply.

I feel pretty strongly about this so I'm going to start off by re-iterating how glad I am that Rebels and some of the canon fiction shot down the idea that Vader has been crippled in his use of the Force. The Lords of the Sith novel contains Vader doing some pretty scary things with the Force. Likewise Rebels includes Vader in a few episodes (I'm pretty confident it's not a spoiler that he shows up since he's in the trailers and artwork) and whilst I wont go into details as not all have seen it, it's not giving anything away to say Vader makes some impressive use of the Force. More than we see any regular Jedi able to do. He is, in canon, clearly and explicitly very strong in the Force. So wherever this notion came from (certain EU novels it sounds like), it's thankfully dead.

As to my reasons for dislike, the Force is presented as something that flows through all living things and has VERY strong connotations of being a spiritual and mystical thing (which is one reason people loathe the prosaic midichlorians explanation so much). Given that, it's a very, very short step from saying losing a limb diminishes your connection to the Force and interpreting it as also meaning you are somehow less of a human being and have been damaged spiritually, especially given the accompanying symbolism of artificial body parts representing moral descent (Vader is more machine than man, we see the progression of Grevious from fierce warrior to malevolent cyborg, Luke looks at his artificial hand and realises he's becoming like his father...). You don't have to agree with that being a 100% ironclad proof, you just have to accept that it's an easy slip from loss of limbs = loss of Force to loss of Force represents loss of humanity, and a very justifiable concern at the implications.

Association of disability with spiritual fault is something with a very long tradition in human society. From people today who think that being disabled is God's punishment (frighteningly common and which I have encountered) to punishment for behaviour in past lives (a Buddhist variant) to the simple degree to which disability or disfigurement is used to convey that someone is a villain in more cartoons, action movies and horror films than I can count. The Force in Star Wars undeniably has heavy spiritual connotations and if you're metaphorically in a wheelchair (cybernetic limbs of course in this case) because you're an amputee, to say one is therefore also crippled in spirit is offensive in the extreme. I'm glad to see that canon sources undermine this repugnant idea. Someone above made references to Vader being in an "iron-lung" being just a version of cowboys wearing black hats and white hats. Vader already has the "black hat" - he wears a skull mask, has a black cape and his weapon of choice is a sword the colour Hell's own light. That's fine. Requiring machinery to live is not an acceptable "black hat" to me. For a start, it simply doesn't work because it doesn't convey anything sinister to me. And I think it only conveys something sinister to those who buy into the old tropes of Crippled Villains and purity of heart = purity of body. Which sadly very many in daily life still do.

But as I began with, thankfully recent media shows Vader is anything but weak in the Force. And I don't think there was ever anything in canon that ever did show he was crippled in terms of the Force. Which leaves only the question as to whether losing a body part SHOULD indicate someone has lost part of their humanity (which loss of Force implies since it's plainly nothing to do with physical body mass as BaronFel points out). And to that, my personal answer is an emphatic "NO!"

And I'm not sure why anyone would want to make it the case, other than perpetuating the Impure Body = Impure Soul trope that I'd really like to see die a death.

I don't think anyone would ever suggest that Vader is weak in the Force. He may be less than he potentially could be if he was physically whole, but that's still more powerful than nearly anyone else. And at no point do I think that a maimed body somehow equals a damaged soul; this is a purely physiological issue.

When Lucas came up with the concept of the Force he was heavily inspired by various eastern philosophies, Buddhism among them. There is also a pretty strong corellation between how the Force works/is explained in the movies and the Chinese and Japanese concepts of Chi/Ki. When Yoda talks about an energy field that permeates all living things and binds them together it's not a stretch to think of this in the same way that a person's Ki permeates their body. If an arm or leg is lost and replaced with a prostethic the energy field would not extend to this, since it's not a natural part of the body. In the case of using Force lightning you could see it as the Dark side energy flowing along your own internal Ki field and then be projected out through the hands. With artificial hands/arms the energy would not be able to "flow" properly.

Again, I don't think this is something that needs to be adhered to or even be a part of the game. I just think it makes for an internally consistent logic with regards to how the Force was initially presented, especially in the original trilogy.

I don't think anyone would ever suggest that Vader is weak in the Force. He may be less than he potentially could be if he was physically whole, but that's still more powerful than nearly anyone else. And at no point do I think that a maimed body somehow equals a damaged soul; this is a purely physiological issue.

Well one can say that Vader should have any arbitrarily level of power in order to say that he is weaker than he ought to be. But all we actually see is that he's considerably stronger than other Jedi we see. So a statement that he's weaker than he ought to be is entirely something produced to support a conclusion, rather than the other way around. There is no evidence which brings us back to someone merely wanting this to be the case. As to it being "purely physiological", this is not the case. The reason so many hate the midichlorians lines from the PT is because they take what was hitherto a spiritual / mystical thing and appear to reduce it to a matter of biology. You cannot argue that the Force usage is not generally seen as something mystical and tied to life and spiritual advancement. To say that losing your limbs reduces ones connection to the Force makes it a short and obvious step to saying it reflects ones spiritual state. YOU can say that to you Force usage is "purely a physiological thing" but to the overwhelming majority of the audience, it has a mystical component. Ergo, if you're claiming that losing limbs affects people mystically. At least that's what such a thing would imply to everyone else who didn't share your very exceptional belief that connection to the Force is purely physiological. But thankfully there's no actual evidence of this in canon which is why I question why some people bandy it around as fact.

When Lucas came up with the concept of the Force he was heavily inspired by various eastern philosophies, Buddhism among them

And see my comments about Buddhism in the post you replied to - this concept of disability reflecting spiritual failure is quite common in Buddhist cultures, often presented as a result of moral failure in a previous life. But that doesn't mean it is present in Star Wars and there's no evidence of it. Yet some people want to introduce it for no reason I can see. It's just an implicit acceptance of the Disfigured / Disabled body = Corrupt Soul trope which crops up with a lot of religious people and in various movies and cartoons. Why bring it into Star Wars?

When Yoda talks about an energy field that permeates all living things and binds them together it's not a stretch to think of this in the same way that a person's Ki permeates their body. If an arm or leg is lost and replaced with a prostethic the energy field would not extend to this, since it's not a natural part of the body

And as BaronFel pointed out earlier, Yoda is tiny. What has body mass have to do with one's connection to the Force? And if you're about to respond its about a body's "integrity" or being as nature intended or similar, that returns back to my chief objection - why present someone as less of a person because they're an amputee? There is no reason to do so presented in canon. It is something that some people are bringing with them from their own expectations.

Again, I don't think this is something that needs to be adhered to or even be a part of the game. I just think it makes for an internally consistent logic with regards to how the Force was initially presented, especially in the original trilogy.

There is symbolism around replacing your body parts with machinery making you evil (which is also questionable, but also nothing more than a suggestion). There's nothing in how the Force was initially presented that indicates this happens. Vader is no less a living being because he has lost limbs. Why should he be? Unless one adopts the position that your connection to the Force is just a physical thing (you've lost a pint of midi-chlorian capacity by losing your arm), then your arguing that losing limbs says something about you spiritually / metaphysically. And there's both no evidence of that and it is extremely offensive as a concept.

I see Vadar's weakness is more psychological. He is in constant turmoil over the loss of his love, potential kids, and for what....too take orders from a guy who is always ready to replace him. He is not right in the head. Where Palpatine and Luke are 100% motivated by their own causes and completely in control. He is constantly in pain and thinking about the losses and the "What Ifs"

It's not about "lost limbs", it's about cybernetics. The pseudo-scientific rationalization is that perhaps the electromagnetic nature of cybernetics is too different from the electromagnetic nature of biology, and interferes with the use of and connection to the Force. Anakin, being stronger in the Force than most, is still plenty capable, but Force lightning would fry his cybernetics.

Regarding Vader being hampered by his non-biological body...

He seems perfectly able to do a Force choke.

He finds your lack of faith disturbing.

Tradition states, however, that is potential dropped from double that of the Emperor to 80% of the Emperor.

80% is still more then adequate to crush your windpipe, though.

I see Vadar's weakness is more psychological. He is in constant turmoil over the loss of his love, potential kids, and for what....too take orders from a guy who is always ready to replace him. He is not right in the head. Where Palpatine and Luke are 100% motivated by their own causes and completely in control. He is constantly in pain and thinking about the losses and the "What Ifs"

It's not about "lost limbs", it's about cybernetics. The pseudo-scientific rationalization is that perhaps the electromagnetic nature of cybernetics is too different from the electromagnetic nature of biology, and interferes with the use of and connection to the Force. Anakin, being stronger in the Force than most, is still plenty capable, but Force lightning would fry his cybernetics.

I've still yet to see any reason to suppose he is weaker in canon. He does things that I've rarely seen even Jedi masters do. And I don't just mean the things they wouldn't, but things like use of move such as lifting large pieces of wreckage, hurling trees about (Lords of the Sith). He is extremely powerful. Yet people talk about his "weakness" and "loss of power" as if it's some established thing. As far as I can tell it's just something some people heard somewhere and took to be true.

dfn,

Well unless a party full of dark-sider PCs like starting out with no Destiny Points available to them, since at the start of every session, the GM automatically flips one Light Side DP in the pool to Dark Side for every dark side Force user in the party.

There's also the matter that going below a 19 on the Morality score carries a permanent reduction to strain threshold, which is a fairly significant resource for PCs, especially those who've focused on Lightsaber Form specs which are very dependent upon strain just with the Parry and Reflect talents. It can also make the PC more vulnerable to talents, attacks, and other game effects that target strain threshold, such as stun damage, the Stun quality (which when activated bypasses soak), the Influence power (which can be triggered multiple times), and various other effects. And most PCs are going to have a much higher wound threshold than they do strain threshold, escalating the problem.

I'd call both of those a "weakness" and "loss of power" in terms of what a character can accomplish, with the former being a case of the party not being able to spend a very valuable resource until the GM flips a Destiny Point, and the later is also a penalty to a valuable resource that the game was designed to require players to manage.

I'll grant you that neither of these things is completely debilitating nor do they make a dark sider PC worthless to play, but they are a consequence and one that could be problematic for the group as a whole. Thus the Morality/Conflict system to give GMs a way to tell their players "if you act like a bunch of crazed murder hobos, there are going to be consequences for doing so" and giving those consequences some teeth. Granted, it's not as toothy as taking away the character, which was WEG and Saga Edition's answer to what happens when a character goes fully over to the dark side, but it's still got a bite.