While all Sith are darksiders, not all darksiders are Sith. Personally I see no reason a character can not be dark, using dark pips, but using his abilities to save a comrade from falling to his death or taking out a contingent of stormtroopers about a kill innocents. He can be a character that uses and is comfortable using violence, torture, and/or fear to solve problems. But it doesn't have to be done stupidly or in a way that causes problems for a group. Dark side does not have to mean stupid. Sure some people can play it that way, just like people playing evil in other games devolve into chaotic stupid doing whatever they want. You can play a character that works with a group just fine if you so choose.

The problem is more the Dark Side tends to lead to sociopathic behavior...on a good day.

'Apology accepted, Captain Needa.'

There's certainly room for Jack Bauer in Star Wars. If you haven't yet, I highly recommend getting The Old Republic and playing through the Imperial Agent's story. It's a very good piece of storytelling that takes place completely in the shades of grey between Light and Dark. You can do some pretty vile things and write them off as "for the good of the Empire."

But the Agent is not Force-sensitive. And that's really the difference here. You can have Jack Bauer, Batman, Wolverine or whatever in Star Wars, but they can't be Force-sensitive. Or, if they were, they'd fall to the Dark Side fairly quickly. The road to Hell and all that.

In actuality, playing in the grey areas of Star Wars makes for some great storytelling. But you're generally not delving into the Force there. You're pretty much sticking with Edge of the Empire or Age of Rebellion there.

The problem with the Dark Side is it alters your mind, your behavior.
The more you use it, the more you will lose yourself and start acting extremely bad.

This is a Star Wars feature, you won't find that in Batman or Wolverine comics.
And that's what make Ep1.2.3 plots : how a good little boy will end up being the 2nd most evil guy in the galaxy.

However, the grip of the Dark Side is not final. You can eventually gain redemption, but it is a long and difficult path to follow.

So, for your PC :
- YES, you can play such a Jedi.
- BUT, the more you use the Dark Side, the more the Dark Side will alter your mind. It will take control of your way of thinking, and you will finally end up killing a child you just rescued because he was not thankful enough, or anything like that.
- AND, you could then redeemed yourself, starting doing good actions without drawing on the Dark Side of the Force, as you're now aware of the monster you've become, and all the atrocities you've done thinking you were right.

Playing gray or morally ambiguious characters is doable with non-Force sensitives easily, as others have said. It's when you mix the Force in that things get complicated. If you look at the Jedi and the Sith as representative of the light and the dark, then consider how other Force groups fit in. To the staunch, traditionalist Jedi, the Voss Mystics, the WItches of Dathomir, and other Force traditions beyond, would appear gray, 'gray' in this case meaning dangerously close to slipping to the Dark Side because they don't follow the 'proven' traditions of the Jedi Order. On the other hand, those groups (or some of them) recognize the danger of the dark side, and forbid using it.

In the case of the Force, being gray is more of philosophy than actually being moreally ambiguous. Legends dedscribed Qui-Gon as gray for disagreeing with the Council, although you wouldn't call him anything but 'good'. In KotOR, Jolee Bindo left the Order because he didn't agree, yet he had a very clear stance on what was right and wrong, and is quick to turn on you if you go dark.

And A New Hope quickly established the Death Star as Bad News. Tarkin is pretty much the second worst person in the Original movies. He had zero qualms about blowing up Alderaan, a planet that wasn't some backwater colony, but was well known, populated, historically significant, and peaceful. Tarkin and the Emperor would be pretty indiscriminate with destroying any planet that they considered to be a threat, and seeing as how petty evil Tarkin seemed, the actual evidence of threat would be lacking compared to how much he disliked a world, or simply suspected. So maybe Luke blowing the Death Star could be considered a dark action. But although he was Force sensitive at the time, he barely had any training. GM George could have given him a pass for ignorance, or very little conflict for mitigating circumstance. I'd consider it the lesser of two evils. Consider what would have actually happened if Luke hadn't fired because he didn't want to kill all the crew aboard the Death Star. Do you think he would have been right, or that he would have been just as guilty for subjecting the galaxy to the Death Star?

The problem with the Dark Side is it alters your mind, your behavior.

The more you use it, the more you will lose yourself and start acting extremely bad.

- BUT, the more you use the Dark Side, the more the Dark Side will alter your mind. It will take control of your way of thinking, and you will finally end up killing a child you just rescued because he was not thankful enough, or anything like that.

I don't buy this. How the hell does the Emperor (ostensibly one of the darkest characters) take over the galaxy if he is an idiot? Because this sounds like idiocy to me. Going dark does not turn you into a moron. You do not become Chaotic Stupid when you go dark.

I was going to post about my character, background and creation, but I think the post is going to get buried among the continued discussion.

Will wait a day or two and then open a new topic.

Playing gray or morally ambiguious characters is doable with non-Force sensitives easily, as others have said. It's when you mix the Force in that things get complicated. If you look at the Jedi and the Sith as representative of the light and the dark, then consider how other Force groups fit in. To the staunch, traditionalist Jedi, the Voss Mystics, the WItches of Dathomir, and other Force traditions beyond, would appear gray, 'gray' in this case meaning dangerously close to slipping to the Dark Side because they don't follow the 'proven' traditions of the Jedi Order. On the other hand, those groups (or some of them) recognize the danger of the dark side, and forbid using it.

In the case of the Force, being gray is more of philosophy than actually being moreally ambiguous. Legends dedscribed Qui-Gon as gray for disagreeing with the Council, although you wouldn't call him anything but 'good'. In KotOR, Jolee Bindo left the Order because he didn't agree, yet he had a very clear stance on what was right and wrong, and is quick to turn on you if you go dark.

And A New Hope quickly established the Death Star as Bad News. Tarkin is pretty much the second worst person in the Original movies. He had zero qualms about blowing up Alderaan, a planet that wasn't some backwater colony, but was well known, populated, historically significant, and peaceful. Tarkin and the Emperor would be pretty indiscriminate with destroying any planet that they considered to be a threat, and seeing as how petty evil Tarkin seemed, the actual evidence of threat would be lacking compared to how much he disliked a world, or simply suspected. So maybe Luke blowing the Death Star could be considered a dark action. But although he was Force sensitive at the time, he barely had any training. GM George could have given him a pass for ignorance, or very little conflict for mitigating circumstance. I'd consider it the lesser of two evils. Consider what would have actually happened if Luke hadn't fired because he didn't want to kill all the crew aboard the Death Star. Do you think he would have been right, or that he would have been just as guilty for subjecting the galaxy to the Death Star?

Star Wars: Rebels also shows how evil Tarkin is to Imperials, executing Imperial Officers failing to capture the rebels and forcing a Imperial Governer to defect and blowing her up.

With Luke getting darkside points for blowing up the Death Star is counted by all the lives he saved because of that action.

Hopeful FFG will publish the other Force traditions, like Witches of Dathomir.

I think the problem has been, and has been pointed out, that I had an idea of what sort of "character" I wanted to base mine on. But looking at the F&D rulebook I began to realize that such characters as:

Batman

Hulk

Wolverine

and a few others who are flawed heroes (but can't presently remember) would be Dark Side in the setting of F&D.

The gospel according to Lucas seems to state that Luke can blow up the Death Star killing millions and be a good guy. But if my character sees stormtroopers kicking down doors, dragging innocent people across the ground to be executed because they couldn't afford their taxes, he would be evil if he killed the stormtroopers. Yet in any other setting, be it Marvel, DC, GI Joe or Three Musketeers, my character would be applauded as a hero.

Oddly enough though:

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

I've mentioned this to you numerous times, you wouldn't be a darksider for killing Stormtroopers who are dragging innocents out. You will get it though if you use dark methods to take them down. You keep missing this key component, it's not always what you do but how you do it. You see a band of Stormtroopers dragging innocent people to their doom and you jump out and start firing at them you're good. You see them doing something horrible and you jump out and Force Lightening them you're bad. Questioning an Imperial Officer for key information is ok. Torturing an Imperial Officer for information is not.

Star Wars (and I've said this to you numerous times) is a game about doing the right thing the right way. It's very different from GI Joe, Three Musketeers, Marvel, and DC. It sets a higher bar for heroics than most of those settings. It's a different kind of story. The problem is that you can't expect all stories to be the same across genres. You can't treat all types of characters as if they are universally good across different types of stories. Each setting has their own set of unique rules and those rules ultimately determine who is the hero and who is the villain. Star Wars isn't a vigilante justice story. It's a morality play that plays up the fact that the good guys do good things by good means and that's why they're the good guys. And it keeps it's villains actions very simple and straight forward.

It is what it is.

In my interpretation of the Star Wars universe, a link to the Force is a two-way street: The greater affect you can have on it's flow, the more it can effect you in return. Being good or evil starts outside of Force affinity, but said affinity interacts with a persons moral nature (going out of my way to avoid the term "morality" here). It's similar, but not identical, to the idea that "power corrupts".

Following that premise, I would say all individuals that have "fallen" to the dark side (i.e. 'dark-siders') are evil, but not all evil individuals are dark-siders. Additionally, I would say you have to be force-sensitive to be a dark-sider, since I would define a dark-sider as an individual's who's actions are dominated by the dark-side of the force for reasons above.

My interpretation applied to examples above:

Grand Moff Tarkin: Tarkin was provided as an example above, I would say that Tarkin's evil (duh), but he's not a dark-sider, since he's not force-sensitive. His actions aren't being dominated by the dark side, and they really couldn't be since he isn't attuned to the Force at all. He's just a ****.

Han & Chewie: These guys are good... ish. Really, more grey, but again, not dark-siders. Now, if they were force sensitive, they're "loose" moral character would have likely

Anakin Skywalker: Totally a dark-sider. He did crappy stuff for a good reason, and did it out of anger (revenge for his mother's death) and fear (Amidala's impending death). Because he's force sensitive and he gave into the negative emotions , he got corrupted by the dark-side and became evil. However, his redemption was still one of the most important parts of the films.

Exar Kun: Did crappy stuff (I think), got corrupted, led to evil and the darkside. Honestly don't remember a lot of specifics.

Luke Skywalker: Flirted with the dark-side plenty of times, but never got in too deep. Until the whole "Dark Empire" thing, and then, like Dad, got corrupted, then redeemed.

Bunch of Jedi Killing in the Clone Wars: Typically tried to avoid combat, accept surrender, exercised restraint, etc. to minimize killing or inflicting needless pain. If they didn't exercise said restraint, a lot of Jedi would have taken a morality hit. I'm sure more than a few fell to the dark side during the war.

Batman: Batman's not Force-Sensitive, so he's not a dark-sider. Is he evil? *shrug* kinda depends on who's writing him. He doesn't kill people (intentionally) but he's still pretty violent, and from what I understand, he can use violence/pain/intimidation for expedience. He also runs on a lot of anger. If he were Force-sensitive, he would likely get corrupted by the dark-side. Maybe not quickly, but eventually, unless he reigned in the "angry vigilante" to just "vigilante".

Wolverine: Violent as [expletive deleted], and again, not force sensitive, so not a dark-sider.

The Hulk: Honestly, I have no idea. If the Hulk were force sensitive, and he was constantly giving into rage, yeah, I'd say he was a dark-side charlie-foxtrot waiting to happen.

The point: In "Star Wars Ethics" I basically see a double-standard: One standard for Force-users, one for the common rabble. The regular guys that can't use the Force are free to exist anywhere along the Good-Evil spectrum, from Tarkin to Boba Fett to Han Solo to Uncle Owen to... some one very upstanding (drawing a blank). Force users are a lot more polarized, you're either evil & dark-side, or not.

If you're pulling on the dark-side and still aren't a "dark-sider", then you just haven't gotten corrupted yet .

I was going to post about my character, background and creation, but I think the post is going to get buried among the continued discussion.

Will wait a day or two and then open a new topic.

Expect the same thing to happen then, too. Especially if you slap a generic title on it like you did for this thread.

Regardless, if you want to know what would happen at my table if you wanted to play the character you described, I would probably wouldn't allow it.

A character that is corrupted by the dark-side (morality falls below... 20?) should be played as a dark-side character. If I had a player with a character that was "dark side" and wasn't role-playing them as a dark-side character after a very brief warning, I would remove their character as a PC.

I'm probably going to get tons of hate for saying that, but it's true. It's also not without precedent. The old WEG system recommended this, and I think the EotE Beta discussed it, too. Not sure if it's in the Core text, or not.

The problem with the Dark Side is it alters your mind, your behavior.
The more you use it, the more you will lose yourself and start acting extremely bad.

- BUT, the more you use the Dark Side, the more the Dark Side will alter your mind. It will take control of your way of thinking, and you will finally end up killing a child you just rescued because he was not thankful enough, or anything like that.

I don't buy this. How the hell does the Emperor (ostensibly one of the darkest characters) take over the galaxy if he is an idiot? Because this sounds like idiocy to me. Going dark does not turn you into a moron. You do not become Chaotic Stupid when you go dark.

Well, you've straw-manned his argument to insert your "Chaotic Stupid" into his argument, so no wonder you don't agree with him. The Emperor is as dark as a Vornskyr's anus, and twice as unpleasant. He's too far deep in the dark-side to come out. This mean's he's driven to be mean, cruel, vengeful, and vile, but none of those are synonyms for "stupid".

The Force is incredibly binary, there is very little of the greys of real life in it. That is why it's a morality tale, fantasy. A long time ago in a kingdome far away.

OK

Some teaser info:

He is a Warrior and lives by a Warrior code of honour.

He was born during the Empire reign of terror and was saved by a mysterious individual when a small boy. That individual became his mentor.

Mentor was expelled from the Jedi for falling in love, which saved his life in the long term as he wasn't around Coruscant or Clones during Order 66. His mentor was a Light Side Paragon, a Warrior whose personal code of honour strove for balance in all things. The wife was as good as a mother to the boy.

One day, as a teenager, Empire ships appear in the sky and he gets "a bad feeling about this" and starts running back to town. "Pain, such terrible pain" is sensed by him and he arrives to find the Empire stormtroopers destroying the town, murdering his friends, neighbours and worst of all his adoptive mother. Inquisitor is already dragging his unconscious mentor to a waiting ship.

This is the moment. ATTACK! Suffice to say, severed limbs and heads fly everywhere. When not using a lightsaber, he uses his fists and feet. Necks are snapped, people are Force Pushed into walls, off roofs, over cliffs. It is the massacre of many by just one very angry teenage apprentice.

Boarding a ship he demands the unarmed pilot and copilot take him to the Inquisitor......

This is where the campaign begins.

Edit: starting morality 29

So maybe Luke blowing the Death Star could be considered a dark action. But although he was Force sensitive at the time, he barely had any training. GM George could have given him a pass for ignorance, or very little conflict for mitigating circumstance. I'd consider it the lesser of two evils.

You know, I keep seeing blowing up the Death Star used as an example of dark-ish behavior, yet this was also the point that we had force ghost Obi-Wan directly telling him to "Use the Force, Luke!" It's REALLY unlikely that he'd have done that if it actually was a dark side action, mitigated or not. Sure, Obi-Wan had some unresolved issues, but not to the point that he'd deliberately risk putting Luke on the "Vader, Mk II" path.

Good thing you're here to police me then, eh LD?

I've seen too many people here and elsewhere that equate being dark to being psychotic baby killing idiots. Some seem to think if you go dark you somehow lose all sense. Now if that is your cup of tea fine, but is not how I view it.

As a GM, here is my take on "Can you play a dark side character that is still good?"

How does this operate within the game mechanics of the Force and Destiny game? The moral strength and weakness that I see fitting your description best is Justice and Cruelty.

You see some bad people doing bad things to innocent people (a couple of slavers beating on some slaves in a market square), and you dish out some rightfully earned justice on them bad mofo's. But what happens once they surrender and repent at the sight of your overwhelming awesomeness? Do you still kill them and cross that line from being a tool for justice to killing unarmed noncombatants?

If you kill them, as a GM, I would give you conflict (as clearly described in the core rulebook). You may eventually fall to the dark side. There are mechanics built into the game to deal with this, but it says nothing about how evil or good your character has to act/behave based on morality.

Here's the kicker: you still have complete control over your characer regardless of morality. I can't (and shouldn't) take that away from you. It's the GM's job to get creative at this point. If you show a pattern of being evil to evil people in the name of good, perhaps I through a twist with a situation that has unintended outcomes. The best example I can think of would (spoilers?) be Kyp Durron stealing the Sun Crusher, destroying a bunch of Imperial targets, only to find out later that he killed his bother in one of his assaults.

The specifics would vary based on your backstory, but something like this would be my answer as a GM.

A force user can use the darkside to fight for good, but the darkside corrupts an individual in ways that he/she cannot predict, and it's the GM's choice on how your actions affect the rest of the game world.

Good thing you're here to police me then, eh LD?

I've seen too many people here and elsewhere that equate being dark to being psychotic baby killing idiots. Some seem to think if you go dark you somehow lose all sense. Now if that is your cup of tea fine, but is not how I view it.

How does calling BS on a strawman argument qualify "policing"? I disagree with your response to another post. I'm as entitled to post my opinion on your response as you are to post your opinion on theirs.

Besides, no one other than you is discussing "psychotic baby killing idiots".

Sure, "some people" may equate those, but are they here? Are you responding to their posts?

I can tell you now I'm not one of those people, though you seem to be assigning me "that cup of tea". I think it's clear that JediEntilzar's post wasn't extending to "idiotic" or "stupid" behavior either.

OK

Some teaser info:

He is a Warrior and lives by a Warrior code of honour.

He was born during the Empire reign of terror and was saved by a mysterious individual when a small boy. That individual became his mentor.

Mentor was expelled from the Jedi for falling in love, which saved his life in the long term as he wasn't around Coruscant or Clones during Order 66. His mentor was a Light Side Paragon, a Warrior whose personal code of honour strove for balance in all things. The wife was as good as a mother to the boy.

One day, as a teenager, Empire ships appear in the sky and he gets "a bad feeling about this" and starts running back to town. "Pain, such terrible pain" is sensed by him and he arrives to find the Empire stormtroopers destroying the town, murdering his friends, neighbours and worst of all his adoptive mother. Inquisitor is already dragging his unconscious mentor to a waiting ship.

This is the moment. ATTACK! Suffice to say, severed limbs and heads fly everywhere. When not using a lightsaber, he uses his fists and feet. Necks are snapped, people are Force Pushed into walls, off roofs, over cliffs. It is the massacre of many by just one very angry teenage apprentice.

Boarding a ship he demands the unarmed pilot and copilot take him to the Inquisitor......

This is where the campaign begins.

Edit: starting morality 29

If you're running a starting character and your first response to an Inquisitor is ATTACK!, then you're likely to find the typical outcome rather deprotagonizing.

This is the moment. ATTACK! Suffice to say, severed limbs and heads fly everywhere. When not using a lightsaber, he uses his fists and feet. Necks are snapped, people are Force Pushed into walls, off roofs, over cliffs. It is the massacre of many by just one very angry teenage apprentice.

If the characters actions can be described in terms of it being a massacre ....... you're not playing a good or heroic character.

The Emperor is certainly psychotic, but he is still a genius and a political mastermind.

There is such a thing as 'REALLY **** SMART' evil. Sidious is example A of really **** smart evil. The only bad call he ever made is missing the fact that the guy who joined him to stop people he cared about from dying might take offense to him torturing someone he cares about to death.

I will agree that massacre is not a very heroic word to describe a character's actions, maybe even one thought of as an antihero of sorts.

Other than that, I think it would require a bit of toning down in another respect. A starting character, even a Knight Level one, might not be able to casually mop the floor with what appears to be a considerable number of stormtroopers, especially with an Inquisitor nearby. I would not underestimate superior numbers, at least going by the game's rules, where stormtroopers might not be as... incompetent as they appeared in the OT movies.

But this is just me, as I somewhat dislike starting PCS with extremely badass accomplishments in their background.

I will agree that massacre is not a very heroic word to describe a character's actions, maybe even one thought of as an antihero of sorts.

Other than that, I think it would require a bit of toning down in another respect. A starting character, even a Knight Level one, might not be able to casually mop the floor with what appears to be a considerable number of stormtroopers, especially with an Inquisitor nearby. I would not underestimate superior numbers, at least going by the game's rules, where stormtroopers might not be as... incompetent as they appeared in the OT movies.

But this is just me, as I somewhat dislike starting PCS with extremely badass accomplishments in their background.

Well in addition to the massacre when you're tearing limbs off, removing heads, tossing people over cliffs, off roofs, and then using your bare hands you've clearly crossed over into being the villain/evil guy. He went waaaaaaaaaay past Batman, Wolverine, the Hulk. Way past it.

Well I've tried

I don't want to play an evil character

I don't want to play a villain

I used Hulk, Wolverine and Batman as a comparison for how far I'd go with such a character. I was even willing to have the momentary flash of rage in his background to explain his low morality. Then play a warrior will play like one of the aforementioned heroes.

But as a teacher once said, with the agreement of fellow students: "you can't even pretend to be nasty". I was on a course and I had to roleplay an angry caller.....I started laughing. Just couldn't be nasty, not even pretend, to the other student who was actually disliked by class and teacher.

Games Master was hoping to play his only two Force Sensitives at opposite ends of the spectrum. Because I don't want to be Dark Side unless I can be honourable and heroic, I'm out. Really. GM wants his Dark Sider and I'm just not going to cut it.

One good thing out of this topic. If you want to be a hero, even an imperfect and flawed Average Joe hero like I want, make sure your GM isn't unreasonable.

He doesn't even want a starting Dark Sider to play a redemption story. I'd gladly start Dark, and perhaps have a Redemption motivation where I battle the beast within to attain inner peace. But that wasn't good enough.

Bah humbug

SW movies (old & new and without considering Clone Wars or Rebels) seems pretty clear and "defined".

Black and White. Empire is bad, Rebels and Jedi are the good ones. Proably, thanks to new material like TV Shows, and maybe new focus from JJ Abrams, SW universe will have some "greys", but until the moment, yes, Dark Siders are evil BUT can always be redeemed.

Then again...

The list of redeemed Sith, even taking legends into account, is a pretty **** short list.

Well I've tried

I don't want to play an evil character

I don't want to play a villain

These all sound like issues between you and your GM. It's unfortunate your GM wouldn't even allow a redemption story, and bizzare they want a dark-side character and wouldn't allow a redemption story; IMO a player should have the agency to decide their character's path, within limits. Frankly, the fact that the GM wants a dark-side character and also doesn't want that character to get redeemed raises some flags for me. I hope the game still works out.

Namaste.