Well, I was speaking of 'if Batman as is were suddenly transported into Star Wars.'

In which case, yes, I believe he'd change and adapt and become unrecognizable from the DC character rather then lose his moral compass. We are talking about a guy with 5 ranks of Discipline and a willpower of 6, after all.

All Force users live on a slippery downhill slope. This is the difference between them and the superheroes who live on level ground. The Force will try to make you fall, either to the Dark or the Light. Too passive to wage real war and get the job done effectively? Yep, fell to the Light. Too bloodthirsty to be reasoned with for his own good? Yep, fell to the Dark. Naturally, both sides see this more as being enlightened rather than being manipulated, and each side has been just as blinded as the other.

Maybe what the OP really needs to shoot for is a more neutral approach. Buy off some of that anger with volunteer time at the local orphanage, I dunno, somethin.

Actually a non Star Wars fiction example to draw comparisons to is the Wheel of Time series, where the Male half of the One Power corrupts you even when you're doing good, while the Female half is safe to use. Although in that world the female half can be used for evil which is not the same as the Light side of the force.

So the Dark Side can be used for good purpose but merely using it will eventually corrupt you.

All Force users live on a slippery downhill slope. This is the difference between them and the superheroes who live on level ground. The Force will try to make you fall, either to the Dark or the Light. Too passive to wage real war and get the job done effectively? Yep, fell to the Light. Too bloodthirsty to be reasoned with for his own good? Yep, fell to the Dark. Naturally, both sides see this more as being enlightened rather than being manipulated, and each side has been just as blinded as the other.

Maybe what the OP really needs to shoot for is a more neutral approach. Buy off some of that anger with volunteer time at the local orphanage, I dunno, somethin.

Inaction can lead to the dark side rather than the light, so I disagree with your premise.

Well, I was speaking of 'if Batman as is were suddenly transported into Star Wars.'

In which case, yes, I believe he'd change and adapt and become unrecognizable from the DC character rather then lose his moral compass. We are talking about a guy with 5 ranks of Discipline and a willpower of 6, after all.

Darksiders can have high Discipline and Willpower too. Those traits don't make him immune to the effects of his actions. Also if he were to be suddenly transported to the Star Wars universe I'm not sure he'd learn what he'd need to learn to avoid falling to the darkside fast enough. Acquiring knowledge on Sith and Jedi takes time. Years. It doesn't take all that long to fall to the darkside all things considered. He could fall before he even realizes there is a fall in the first place.

Inaction can lead to the dark side rather than the light, so I disagree with your premise.

Agreed, you are no more noble for letting evil do it's thing.

There are a lot of types of inaction. Being overly cautious and not taking action because you "sense" theres more to the story might be as bad as rushing in to help. This is what kept the Jedi council from becoming involved in the Mandalorian wars.

"Difficult it is, the Dark side to see." Thats right Yoda, go meditate some more, because that really worked well. They knew the Sith had returned, inaction didn't serve the Light very well, but once again having fallen to the Light they were a tad blinded and chose to do little about it.

Each side has its extremes and can be just as dangerous to anyone that follows along blindly. Ask all those dead Jedi how following the Light side worked out for them. You think them dying out like that was a coincidence? The Force cleaned shop on them just like it did to the Sith thousands of years ago when they got blinded by their own darkness. Basically what I'm getting at here is that extreme ends of the spectrum are dangerous on both sides, the Dark clouds, but the Light blinds. Problem is, once you're in, most don't realize how deep they really are until its far too late.

Unless you're a player character;) Then you get the Lucas get out of alignment free card. Or in this game, free with enough xps.....

I don't really think the Jedi Council was blinded by the light. I think their inaction was due more to their philosphy than anything that the Force did to them directly. Not being able to use the Force as well as they used to made them nervous. And not having had to fight the Sith for 1000 years made them complacent. Thus they weren't so much blinded by the light so much that they didn't know how to respond to change.

Well, I was speaking of 'if Batman as is were suddenly transported into Star Wars.'

In which case, yes, I believe he'd change and adapt and become unrecognizable from the DC character rather then lose his moral compass. We are talking about a guy with 5 ranks of Discipline and a willpower of 6, after all.

Darksiders can have high Discipline and Willpower too. Those traits don't make him immune to the effects of his actions. Also if he were to be suddenly transported to the Star Wars universe I'm not sure he'd learn what he'd need to learn to avoid falling to the darkside fast enough. Acquiring knowledge on Sith and Jedi takes time. Years. It doesn't take all that long to fall to the darkside all things considered. He could fall before he even realizes there is a fall in the first place.

Inaction can lead to the dark side rather than the light, so I disagree with your premise.

Agreed, you are no more noble for letting evil do it's thing.

It's a bit pedantic. Either I'm right and he learns fast enough, or you're right and he becomes a monster. But in neither case will he be what a DC Comics reader expects.

It depends on two questions IMO. Is an evil act necessary for carrying out the Dark Sider;s goals? Will a good act hinder those plans? Could a good act aid their objectives?

I played a Sith who did lots of good things because he did good whenever the answers to the first two questions were both no, and there was even the slightest chance that the answer to the third was yes.

In this case however he is not being "good", he is being pragmatic. He is not doing the good act simply because it is a good thing to do, he is doing it because not only does it not hinder his plans or goals, but actually serves to further them. Hardly a nice thing really.

In the context of the movies, it is presented as being pretty much black and white: Light Side = good, Dark Side = evil. It gets slightly more muddy in representations like the Clone Wars and the EU, being a conglomerate of different creative minds tackling the same problems, is more diverse still, but at its core, the Star Wars universe is black and white.

Evil, of course, does not have to mean cackling megalomaniac or mass-murderer. Even evil characters can work towards "good" goals, can have relationships, care for something or someone and so on. I can certainly envision a character doing the wrong things for the right reasons - the ends justify the means and all that. I think it might be fun playing on that slippery slope.

While I do not know if Palpatine considered himself good, I am sure he thought he was right, maybe even morally right. If your morals are "the strong rule the weak", you believe it is your moral right, maybe even duty, to rule over those you consider weaker than you. The great debate over whether morals are internal or external, if there is a set of universal morals true for every being or not, aside, as the question is only if the person believes to be morally in the right and that comes only down to their own view on morals. People have been doing terrible things believing themselves to be right, some even believing to be good. Never underestimate the tendency of the human mind to justify one's own actions.

In the context of the movies, it is presented as being pretty much black and white: Light Side = good, Dark Side = evil. It gets slightly more muddy in representations like the Clone Wars and the EU, being a conglomerate of different creative minds tackling the same problems, is more diverse still, but at its core, the Star Wars universe is black and white.

Evil, of course, does not have to mean cackling megalomaniac or mass-murderer. Even evil characters can work towards "good" goals, can have relationships, care for something or someone and so on. I can certainly envision a character doing the wrong things for the right reasons - the ends justify the means and all that. I think it might be fun playing on that slippery slope.

While I do not know if Palpatine considered himself good, I am sure he thought he was right, maybe even morally right. If your morals are "the strong rule the weak", you believe it is your moral right, maybe even duty, to rule over those you consider weaker than you. The great debate over whether morals are internal or external, if there is a set of universal morals true for every being or not, aside, as the question is only if the person believes to be morally in the right and that comes only down to their own view on morals. People have been doing terrible things believing themselves to be right, some even believing to be good. Never underestimate the tendency of the human mind to justify one's own actions.

While I would still think that good and evil exist as a separate axis from moral/immoral they aren't quite as 90 degrees off as my "Jedi-Siith/Light-Dark" grid. The described space may be... twisty. While contemplating the continuums of good-evil/right-wrong/moral-immoral is one of the things I like doing as thought experiments and philosophical exercises, all of those axis are pretty muddy in the real world. In Star Wars, at least, one of these is hard and fast defined. Light Side = Good, Dark Side = Evil. While at least at my gaming table I believe that the means and the ends must be weighed to consider all morality and conflict issues, others may not feel so lenient.

In the case of Palpatine, personally I think he did what he did in a way to appear moral as sort of a PR thing. No one in their right mind would vote for someone that chewed on the scenery by saying "Vote for Me for Chancellor, because I don't trust you people with decisions more important than 'What's for breakfast,'" and Palpatine needed an air of legitimacy to sway good but misguided people to his cause. Anakin, on the other hand, even before he began his fall proper seemed convinced that government should exist somewhere between a constitutional monarchy and an outright dictatorship for reasons of morality and a desire to actions as opposed to debate and gridlock under the assumption that even an ill-conceived something is better than a well reasoned nothing. Misguided he may be, but it was born out of a desire to do good.

Which brings me full circle to the "Good Intentions Paving Stone Emporium," and something I call the Special Theory of Moral Relativity as it Relates to Plot, which states, "Everyone is the hero of their own story, but not the hero of every story."

This being said and bringing it back around to the original post so this isn't idle pontificating about the nature of good, evil, and morality, and this may be a bit surprising given just how much everything I've said up to this point in the thread has been me saying "Yup, that's an evil concept, and it's going to end messy," I find it a compelling concept and one that I would allow under a few provisos at my table.

1) Everybody knows up front this is going to be a well-intentioned Dark Side character.

2) Due to the corrupting nature of the Dark Side, at some points and to varying degrees, I expect the character to lose control.

3) If at any point I feel the character -should- lose control due to in-game stimuli and the player isn't responding in what I feel to be an appropriate manner, I will be swayed by truly compelling and extraordinary evidence, but other wise, the character -will- lose control.

4) The instant I feel that the character is becoming a disruption or disturbing the good times vibe, the character will wander off into the sunset or get hit by micro meteor at my discretion, and someone should have a back up concept, just in case.

First of all, I just want to say that several people who use Batman as an example seem to be missing a central point of that character: namely that Batman never kills anyone. Sure, he plays on fear and uses violence, but he never kills. Not even the Joker, who you can safely say has it coming on any number of occasions. So while Batman isn't exactly a shining knight and generates enough Conflict that he probably won't see Light side paragon, nor will he ever drop all the way down to 29 or less Morality. Bruce Banner struggles constantly against his baser urges, and once he gains conscious control of his Hulk persona he is very, very careful about hurting people. Same goes for Wolverine; while has little compunction about killing, the thing that makes him a hero rather than a savage monster (and also a very interesting character) is that he constantly fights against that side of his personality - the beast that just goes berserks and kills everything in sight.

The Nietzsche quote Genntlemanscoundrel made a few post ago is actually extremely appropriate here. A character that uses the Dark side to fight evil is going to fall in the end. Sure, it will be more of a leisurely stroll downwards rather than an outright fall, but he'll get there eventually. And once you go to the Dark side, your personality changes. You don't necessarly do a full-around turn and become what you were fighting; rather you get into a more callous, uncaring mindset. Suddenly the ends begin justifying the means to a greater and greater extent.

Too many stormtroopers on the front line? Start targeting civillian population centres so they'll have to pull troops from the front to guard their women and children. Sure, some schools and hospitals go up in flames, but once you've hit 29 Morality those don't seem so important anymore. Torturing prisoners? They're only Imperials, it's not like they're real people. Need to sacrifice a few thousand of your own people to achieve your objectives? Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. And before you know it you're standing on the bridge of your personal Death Star, aiming that superlaser at Coruscant because that'll force the Imperials to surrender and bring peace to the galaxy. You're doing it for the greater good, after all.

Actually, it's very easy for the DC and Marvel characters to generate enough conflict, even with their strict no kill policies...to end up Dark. Look at the list of everything that generates conflict, and realize how often comics characters do that stuff, even if they never kill.

Oliver Queen, in Arrow, often puts an arrow through somebody's hand or shoulder to get information. That's torture. Lots of conflict there, bro. Batman's interrogation techniques might also qualify as torture from the Force's point of view, and there's his fall in a nutshell.

Let's try to give a better picture of the character:

First I want to make clear this is not a Sith. In fact, in brainstorming the idea is that he is the apprentice of an expelled Jedi. Expelled because he did what Anakin was too stupid to do. "I love her and I want to marry her." Jedi no doubts screaming at him how evil and selfish he was and how the Jedi don't train his sort of undisciplined barbarian.

Second, I'd like to make the point that he is not out to impose his galactic view on anyone. He doesn't want power, or wealth, or even fame and glory. He wants to defend the weak and helpless against those who use oppression, tyranny and violence to impose their dogmatic will on others. He is, at the very core of his being, a freedom fighter.

Yes: "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." But that applies to ALL characters from ALL game systems. Being Force Sensitive doesn't come into that.

No he won't use psychological warfare against his enemies. So Batman probably was a bad comparison. He wouldn't waste time scaring people if he could just as easily cut them down or zap them with Force Lightning. Simple. Direct. Done.

Yes he would shoot first if confronted by an enemy. While the Light Sider might perform a graceful ballet twirling their lightsaber in a state of blissful peace, my character would just ATTACK.

How would he respond if:

On a diplomatic mission to resolve a blockade only to have the other party try and kill him?

Slice, push, zzzap his way to the bridge, take out any opposition until nobody fought back, then demand the immediate surrender and deactivation of all droids. Simple. Direct. Done.

Ending up on a desert planet with a damaged hyperdrive? He'd probably act like a more grumpy and impatient Qui-Gon. He might ask Watto if he could earn the parts he needed, but he would not threaten or intimidate. Nor would he perform a "favour" if it involved hurting or frightening another.

His mentor is suddenly attacked by a mysterious stranger? ATTACK!

Returns to a wartorn planet where capturing the leader is needed? He'd actually "capture" the Queen and lead her to the enemy leaders. Then free her, cut down any opposition and let the Queen discuss a new treaty.

Somebody is trying to assassinate the now Senator? Arrange to kill her himself and then see who turns up to thank him. If nobody does, he'd obviously have to reveal she's alive and well at some point.

Discovers the lair of those plotting mischief? Drop into their midsts and ATTACK! For those of you about to point out a flaw, he'd make sure those who need to know knew where he was. "I'm following this bounty hunter to Geonosis. If you don't hear from me you'll know to send the cavalry."

Finds himself without a lightsaber in an arena? FORCE LIGHTNING!

Comes face-to-face with the enemy leader? ATTACK!

Sorry folks, he wouldn't have chopped off Dooku's hands. He'd just kill him.

He seriously dislikes prominence so can't be manipulated through being put on the Jedi Council. But he's no spy either. He'd tell Palpatine and Obi-Wan where to stick their schemes.

Discovers the Sith Lord? Now this one might not be attack. He knows the evil manipulator should die, but also knows it's best to tread carefully.

Is told to stay behind while the Masters combat the Sith? He would disobey, he would run into the room, and he wouldn't stop Windu. In fact, if Windu hesitated he'd do the deed himself.

Even if it got further, he'd refuse to betray the Jedi and would actually fight against the Clones to protect them. Especially the younglings.

How would he deal with Anakin on Mustafaar? Kill him.

The only other scene worth mentioning is that he'd march into Jabba's palace, cutting down any who tried to stop him, and demand Jabba release his friends or else. If he refused? ATTACK!

All that ATTACK is likely to lead to death, either of the character or of his/her companions, but more probably both. It also puts the campaign on a one-PC-conducted railroad, and that's about as much fun for the other players as a GM-conducted railroad.

Example one is pretty much exactly what Qui-Gon did, but him and Obi-Wan had to split because of the destroyer droids. Example two doesn't really show anything other than your PC isn't a good diplomat. Example three (which I can't remember the scene), could probably fall under self-defense, and wouldn't score any conflict. Examples four and five are tricky: ruses like that are pulled several times in The Clone Wars, but the sticking point is 'is the person you ar eprotecting in the know and compliant?' If not, then probably conflict for endangering an innocent. If you kill the other party without attempting to capture them first, that would mean conflict. Six is equally tricky; attempts to negotiate could be argued as being pointless, but killing first without attempting to capture could mean conflict.

Example seven means you need to watch The Clone Wars. In new canon, the number of individuals who can use it is small (one of whom is the living embodiment of the dark side itself), and not every dark sider, not even Sith Lords, can pull it off. Dooku implies that it takes much training and study to fully master (Darth Maul, a Sith Lord, never used it). The RPG reflects this; read the Unleash Force power description in F&D. So your character would have to be heavily invested in the DS to pull it off. See 4-6 for example 8. Anakin disarming Dooku was just him exploiting an opening in their duel. He could have just as easily stabbed him instead and won the duel. That doesn't gain conflict, it was the executing him after he was at his complete mercy that did.

Your next example is way, way, way more complex. The easy answer to telling them off is 'difference of opinion/philosophy, move along'. The hard part comes in when you consider that, to Anakin, the Jedi Council, Obi-Wan and Palpatine are all his allies and friends. Sure, it's obvious that Palpatine wasn't right (to the audience and some of the characters), but Anakin didn't or wouldn't see it, so he effectively had one friend/group of allies asking him to betray another ally/friend. It would have worked to promote drama much better if the acting and writing was better.

I'll skip to the last point: Obi-Wan won the duel and left Anakin for dead. I mean, the man only had one hand and had previously caught fire. The only thing Obi-Wan couldn't do was execute the mostly dead guy that was also his close friend. Weakness on his part? Yes, probably. Worthy of conflict? I'd lean towards 'no', but YMMV. The only thing that prevented Vader's death was Palpatine magically flying at the speed of plot across the galaxy in a few minutes to rescue him. Lava is hot. He would have baked to death before too long.

Not betraying the Jedi is, like, a Jedi action? I guess? Betraying Windu and then slaughtering the Jedi was Anakin's fall, and shows that he had become a dark side Sith Lord. Not doing those things would mean he hadn't fallen.

Just my POV. YMMV.

Personal I am not a fan of pure white and black type of situations. In the EU, even the cartoons of the Clone Wars you saw some Jedi doing some pretty bad ****, and still remain good. Hell even Yoda becomes a total tool bag and he is still Yoda. By that I mean how he just turned his back on Ahsoka, which to me was a pure sign of weakness. A child needs you an an 800 old man just turns his back because he was scared of pissing off some other people.

And then you have Mace Windu who's very style of combat is tainted with the dark side. His character is a "combat *****" who "min/maxed" to get the best of both worlds in a RPG. He is another Jedi Master who is still considered good when he really isn't that good. From my point of view the only truly "good" Jedi was Obi-Wan and Plu Koon, with the rest of the Jedi doing some pretty crappy things.

Hell in the EU the Jedi Masters send an assassin out to kill someone. They don't have the stomach do it and send someone else to do it. It falls back to who is really evil? The assassin or the master who sends the assassin in the first place.

PS: When I say the EU I am talking about the new "EU" not the old one

First of all, I just want to say that several people who use Batman as an example seem to be missing a central point of that character: namely that Batman never kills anyone. Sure, he plays on fear and uses violence, but he never kills.

The fact that Batman doesn't kill has no bearing. Batman uses fear as a weapon, is emotionally abusive, beats the holy hell out of people (sometimes well past what he should but still short of killing them unless we're talking about Arkham Asylum in which case those people likely died due to the injuries), and of course engages in both physical and psychological torture. He doesn't need to kill to be a darksider. These traits are fine in an anti hero or a hero in DC Comics but these things are the kind of actions that make up darksiders. That's why you can't translate him, Star Wars enforces a much higher standard than DC Comics when it comes to what makes one good or evil.

Personal I am not a fan of pure white and black type of situations. In the EU, even the cartoons of the Clone Wars you saw some Jedi doing some pretty bad ****, and still remain good. Hell even Yoda becomes a total tool bag and he is still Yoda. By that I mean how he just turned his back on Ahsoka, which to me was a pure sign of weakness. A child needs you an an 800 old man just turns his back because he was scared of pissing off some other people.

This doesn't make Yoda any less good or a lightsider though.

And then you have Mace Windu who's very style of combat is tainted with the dark side. His character is a "combat *****" who "min/maxed" to get the best of both worlds in a RPG. He is another Jedi Master who is still considered good when he really isn't that good. From my point of view the only truly "good" Jedi was Obi-Wan and Plu Koon, with the rest of the Jedi doing some pretty crappy things.

All things considered Mace isn't actually shown doing anything that qualifies as dark. Sure he enjoys combat but combat isn't what makes one darkside or lightside.

I've not read the numerous responses to this thread, so I may be re-iterating points already made by others here but, here goes...

I think this is a question that warrants multiple levels of answer. Firstly, in the movies and most canon content for Star Wars I would say that Darkside users are clearly depicted as evil and would tend to argue that it is the intent that they are evil.

However, there are some EU examples and from just a more general approach, systematically a darkside user does not need to be evil. However, they're unlikely to be NICE people either. They will tend towards violence, intimidation, and the like. They will tend to attack first and ask questions later, and they may choose to kill opponents even once they are subdued because a dead opponent doesn't come looking for revenge or sneak up on you from behind while you continue to explore the depths of the Jedi temple you are in. And they may frequently flip those Dark Pips in order to maximize the effectiveness of their powers. None of these things make them outright evil.

My comic book character references were, for want of a better word or phrase, similes.

He is similar to Batman in the sense that he gets his hands dirty, when it is right and just to do so, to spare others from having to resort to methods that might be detrimental to them and their reputations.

He is similar to Wolverine in the sense that he's a good man, aware of his "beast within" but has no qualms getting out his claws and taking out all opposition. Hulk for the same reason.

Dark Side is about power. I've been reading up on the Sith. But I got a strong impression that could mean the power to overcome obstacles that would otherwise be impossible. Granted the Sith do want to rule the galaxy, but my character does not.

His moral strengths are: compassion and justice

His moral weaknesses are: anger and recklessness

No greed. No coldness. No arrogance.

His selfless actions are for the freedom and protection of others. If I could build this character as a Light Side I would, but opinion was that being a "Dark Side Hero" was not only a more honest portrayal, but would make for a far more interesting character.

Quote

Personal I am not a fan of pure white and black type of situations. In the EU, even the cartoons of the Clone Wars you saw some Jedi doing some pretty bad ****, and still remain good. Hell even Yoda becomes a total tool bag and he is still Yoda. By that I mean how he just turned his back on Ahsoka, which to me was a pure sign of weakness. A child needs you an an 800 old man just turns his back because he was scared of pissing off some other people.

This doesn't make Yoda any less good or a lightsider though.

Sending Ahsoka off and knowing that Palpatine was going to send her to get killed is pretty dark side in my eyes. Yoda showed fear, which leads to the dark side or so Yoda says. Also the fact that he didn't lift a single finger to try and help her was pathetic. People who sit back and don't do anything, knowing that they are wrong to me is even worse.

This is just how I feel about it, not to get into an argument. Even the great masters of the force, can do things that are dark side, but because they are "heroes" in the series/movies it's okay. Being a dark jedi, for me doesn't mean your evil in my eyes. If you ask me, I wouldn't be shocked if a few jedi left the order because they did fall in love wanted to get married.

Sending Ahsoka off and knowing that Palpatine was going to send her to get killed is pretty dark side in my eyes.

Still not a darkside act. Ahsoka was a Jedi padawan and they are often sent on missions that could get them killed. That is the life of the Jedi and the realities of war. Yoda sent a lot of people on missions where they were more than likely going to be killed. None of which makes him a darksider.

Yoda showed fear, which leads to the dark side or so Yoda says.

Showing fear is not the same as being ruled by fear. It shows that Yoda isn't perfect to be sure but was not enough on it's own (as an isolated incident) to make him a darksider or to suggest he was anything but a lightsider.

Also the fact that he didn't lift a single finger to try and help her was pathetic.

Maybe. I don't think so of course. But it still doesn't qualify as darkside or evil on the part of Yoda. It just shows that Yoda is a flawed character and not perfect. Which I'm fine with as I find characters who do the right thing all the time boring and dull.

People who sit back and don't do anything, knowing that they are wrong to me is even worse.

And still not an act of a darksider or a character going dark. Just shows that Yoda has flaws and wasn't perfect. See above.

This is just how I feel about it, not to get into an argument. Even the great masters of the force, can do things that are dark side, but because they are "heroes" in the series/movies it's okay. Being a dark jedi, for me doesn't mean your evil in my eyes. If you ask me, I wouldn't be shocked if a few jedi left the order because they did fall in love wanted to get married.

The thing is you haven't listed anything that made these Jedi Masters dark Jedi. You've just listed ways in which they were not perfect paragons of the light.

So you can be a Paragon of Light doing the wrong thing?

But you cannot be a good guy doing the right thing but using the Dark Side?

I'm really starting to dislike this

So you can be a Paragon of Light doing the wrong thing?

But you cannot be a good guy doing the right thing but using the Dark Side?

I'm really starting to dislike this

Well no, you only get to be a paragon of the light by doing the right things. Being a paragon is a truly hard ideal to live up to. One that I feel the Jedi Council likely failed at. But they are still for the most part lightsiders as opposed to darksiders.

And yes while you may be starting to dislike this it's important to remember one key thing, Lucas created this story so that darksiders were always evil. He built it on a mythic narrative structure in which the bad guys were all evil. This is why Luke taking out the Death Star is a good thing, because the narrative structure of the story assumes that anyone on Vader's side is automatically evil even though logically speaking the Death Star was likely filled with plenty of people who did not deserve to die.

To be honest Star Wars isn't a good setting to explore the kind of hero in which you do dark things for good reasons. Sure a GM can create that in a game, but the narrative structure of the setting has a very strict good/evil split that makes what you talk about hard to pull off and hard to find good examples of working well with in the setting.

You can work with your GM to play such a character, just understand the setting itself isn't really good at making it possible on it's own. It will require GM adjustments and for the other players to go a long with the general idea.

Ultimately Star Wars is about good people doing good things the right way. Luke is the hero because instead of beating Vader (and he could have) he throws down his weapon and would rather risk death and letting the Emperor win than doing the right thing (killing Vader) the wrong way.