Thrawn was totally loyal to the Empire. So was Pallaeon. The key difference was that they weren't completely self-absorbed ninnies, and had a degree of honor about them. But they were both Imperialists to the core.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Imperias are not about duty, they are about selfish goals. "Come back and free all the slaves", "Protect the ones you love", "Gain all the power in the galaxy to protect your own lousy ass from external threats", "find you own missing father with the resources the empire offers", "enjoy the power given to you by the empire". Does are not per se evil goals, but they are certainly not based on a feeling of duty, but passion and desire.

I can't really agree with you here. Some Imperials really are about their Duty, even if it's a twisted take on it by most standards. To say that they also have individual and self-serving goals doesn't negate this anymore than Rebels having such goals negates that they have a Duty to the Alliance.

Duty to the empire:

Emperor? Nope,

Vader? Nope.

Zaarin? Nope.

Both Isards? Nope.

Tarkin? Nope.

Thrawn? Nope, his allegiance seems to be for Chiss ascendancy, his service for the empire is based on personal motives and loyality to the chiss. You could call this duty, but it not really empire related.

181st Squadron? Not really even when Soontir Fel might be a fringe case, and one that not only trained Wedge and half of Red/Rouge Squadron, but as well one who deflects later to the alliance.

Clone Troopers? Not happy about order 66, not happy at all. We see some of them on Alliance side based on duty.

Storm Troopers? Brain washed recruits, some of them forced into service, others lured in by propaganda. You could call this duty, but than their loyality is not really with the empire, but the propaganda image of the empire, no wonder that the alliance is full of imperial deflectors. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, imperials naturally have a sense of duty as well, but their duty does not lead to loyalty to the empire, but instead is using the empire to achieve personal goals even when those goals might be duty related.

Yeah, right now putting out another $60 core rulebook where a large portion of the text is going to be copy/paste from AoR probably isn't in FFG's best interests. After all, the core rulebooks are already selling well, though AoR seems to be the least popular (from what I've seen, which by all means is not all-encompassing) of the three. Plus, most Imperial-focused campaigns tend to last a very short period of time, as is frequently the case where the PCs are playing the villains of a setting.

A sourcebook in a similar vein to Strongholds of Rebellion would probably be the best approach, with a chapter discussing what tweaks to make to AoR to account for the PCs being on the other side of the Galactic Civil War. I don't know if they really need to swap out Duty with a similarly-themed mechanic, but perhaps instead include new types of Duty that have a bit more of a sinister bent. Or perhaps a new Motivation type to account for how most named Imperials do indeed have some form of personal agenda.

Imperias are not about duty, they are about selfish goals. "Come back and free all the slaves", "Protect the ones you love", "Gain all the power in the galaxy to protect your own lousy ass from external threats", "find you own missing father with the resources the empire offers", "enjoy the power given to you by the empire". Does are not per se evil goals, but they are certainly not based on a feeling of duty, but passion and desire.

I can't really agree with you here. Some Imperials really are about their Duty, even if it's a twisted take on it by most standards. To say that they also have individual and self-serving goals doesn't negate this anymore than Rebels having such goals negates that they have a Duty to the Alliance.

Duty to the empire:

Emperor? Nope,

Vader? Nope.

Zaarin? Nope.

Both Isards? Nope.

Tarkin? Nope.

Thrawn? Nope, his allegiance seems to be for Chiss ascendancy, his service for the empire is based on personal motives and loyality to the chiss. You could call this duty, but it not really empire related.

181st Squadron? Not really even when Soontir Fel might be a fringe case, and one that not only trained Wedge and half of Red/Rouge Squadron, but as well one who deflects later to the alliance.

Clone Troopers? Not happy about order 66, not happy at all. We see some of them on Alliance side based on duty.

Storm Troopers? Brain washed recruits, some of them forced into service, others lured in by propaganda. You could call this duty, but than their loyality is not really with the empire, but the propaganda image of the empire, no wonder that the alliance is full of imperial deflectors. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, imperials naturally have a sense of duty as well, but their duty does not lead to loyalty to the empire, but instead is using the empire to achieve personal goals even when those goals might be duty related.

You seem to be confusing Duty with Motivation.

I think you seem to confuse player duty as an element of player agenda with duty as performance of one's duty for the empire or obligation to the empire. And I totally admit that I forgot about that that perspective as this is the side which is as well important for ranking up within the alliance ranks and you could use a similar mechanic for imperial play as well, but would be a poor choice for a central element for imperial players.

And now I am not sure if I really got the point across, curse my englisch. Do you get the difference when you do something because you think it is your duty and when you do something because your superiors tell you it is your duty? Occupation vs vocation?

c) RPGs are about things. Not every RPG is about everything. You're not supposed to play dragons in D&D. You don't play orcs or skaven in WHFRP because a bunch of them chumming around doing adventures in the Empire would be totally outside the lore and scope of the game.

Garett Lepper might disagree with you. He wrote a wonderful netbook that made playing Orks pretty reasonable... It also isn't traipsing around the Empire, but raiding the fringes of Kislev and the Empire.

An imperial campaign would be about Greed and Power... and could easily justify a different meta score... Actually, the Empire feels to me a better fit with the Mechanics of Obligation than with the Mechanics of Duty. Call it "Official Mistrust"...

When it crosses 100 for the Imperial Party, someone's being looked at for liquidation. Failure raises it. Failure not blamed upon someone else raises it more. Only significant success lowers it.

c) RPGs are about things. Not every RPG is about everything. You're not supposed to play dragons in D&D. You don't play orcs or skaven in WHFRP because a bunch of them chumming around doing adventures in the Empire would be totally outside the lore and scope of the game.

Garett Lepper might disagree with you. He wrote a wonderful netbook that made playing Orks pretty reasonable... It also isn't traipsing around the Empire, but raiding the fringes of Kislev and the Empire.

An imperial campaign would be about Greed and Power... and could easily justify a different meta score... Actually, the Empire feels to me a better fit with the Mechanics of Obligation than with the Mechanics of Duty. Call it "Official Mistrust"...

When it crosses 100 for the Imperial Party, someone's being looked at for liquidation. Failure raises it. Failure not blamed upon someone else raises it more. Only significant success lowers it.

How about influence? Making the right kind of people happy increases is - which not necessary means being successful, sometimes the right choice is to screw the mission so someone else profits from this. Corruption and all in full progress. It is not about what obligations you have, but about what favors you can call in.

Duty represents your efforts working towards something you actually want, be that a corporation, a military group or a gang. Obligation represents something you got but you haven't yet paid off, it's a debt you owe.

Either could represent someone working for the Rebellion or the Empire, one character may loath the Rebels but owes them a duty of service, as soon as that's up their going to book it. On the other side an Imperial Spy may hate the rebellion and believe in the true value of the Imperial rule, doing their it most to disrupt rebels. Finn most definitely has an Obligation to the First Order, but Tarkin was contribution rank 20 all on his own.

If you want to separate the PC's Duties I think that would work well, your going to need to increase the amount you award significantly, but each going up at different times would play to the core campaign theme of in fighting one upping each other.

Duty to the empire:

Emperor? Nope,

Vader? Nope.

Zaarin? Nope.

Both Isards? Nope.

Tarkin? Nope.

Thrawn? Nope, his allegiance seems to be for Chiss ascendancy, his service for the empire is based on personal motives and loyality to the chiss. You could call this duty, but it not really empire related.

181st Squadron? Not really even when Soontir Fel might be a fringe case, and one that not only trained Wedge and half of Red/Rouge Squadron, but as well one who deflects later to the alliance.

Clone Troopers? Not happy about order 66, not happy at all. We see some of them on Alliance side based on duty.

Storm Troopers? Brain washed recruits, some of them forced into service, others lured in by propaganda. You could call this duty, but than their loyality is not really with the empire, but the propaganda image of the empire, no wonder that the alliance is full of imperial deflectors. ;-)

The thing is, these guys also didn't screw over the party to get something at the drop of a hat either. They were all able to work toward a common goal when it came time to roll dice.

They all had character flaws, usually Ambition, or a variation of it, but to say something like Isard didn't have the "Intelligence" or Thrawn something like the "Combat Victory" Duty is a pretty hard case to make.

Duty isn't merely some personal calling, it's how your personal passion and abilities provide a way for you to gain rank, influence and resources within the organization you are a part of. What you do with that rank, influence and resources is something else, but how you get it is still technically measured with the Duty system. In the case of a lot of those characters the time the audience meets them as high level NPCs anyway. The RPG tale wouldn't be the story of Grand Admiral Thrawn, it would be the story of Lt. Thrawn.

If anything Duty in an Imperial campaign might be even more important than an Alliance campaign because it can be used as a way to motivate the players to keep their betrayal in check. Similar to Obligation, a GM could require betrayal to be purchased with Duty, or otherwise affect Duty negatively by, random acts of stoopid betrayal. Shoving Corwin off the catwalk at an inappropriate moment simply because he's standing right there also means the entire group take a serious hit to Duty, making it take that much longer to get that money, gear, ship, rank you've been wanting.

But that goes back to what I've been saying about how a book outlining Imperial play options is going to have to spend a lot of time covering HOW to GM an Imperial campaign. Ace:Pilot is still going to be Ace:Pilot, it doesn't matter if you'll be in an X-wing or a TIE fighter, there's no need to write more then a few pages on that.

What will need page space is topics like "How to 'keep the players hungry' when they work for an Empire with near limitless resources," and "How to tell and Evil story without becoming one of those 'D&D is Satanic' comics," and of course "How to keep the players from literally stabbing each other in the back in every scene and encounter because they think that's how evil characters work."

All those things can be done, heck I'd even be willing to toss my hat in the ring to write such a supplement, but the point is, running an "Evil" campaign isn't mechanically all that different than a "Good" campaign. What is different is all the other stuff, the themes, tones, roles, motivations, and messaging. That's what makes running one so tough. Everyone knows how to run a hero, because all heroes essentially follow the same path, even anti-heroes seem to follow the a same path, though reluctantly and with more grit and snark. Good usable villain examples are harder to find, because villains are always, by nature, depicted as characters that are difficult for the audience to relate to.

We all know that Cobra Commander is determined to rule the world (or at least reduce it to anarchy) but the explanation of WHY he wants to do it and why he's willing to use the means he uses and go to the lengths he goes are often just glossed over, if mentioned at all...

Which is kinda sad, since everyone knows evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

I am currently running a quasi-imperial campaign with my EotE group.

Long story short: After the Clone Wars a few small-time criminals got out of prison and tried their hand in smuggling and bounty hunting.

They tried to work for the last Seps (there were small fractions in the Outer RIm) and tried to double-cross the Imperials sniffing around. What should be a simple job went wrong so hard that the Seps got beaten by the Imps and the characters were blamed for it - no more working for the Seps. But the Imps seemed impressed enough to give them some assignments. Fast forward 3 years and the group represents the governour and his retinue of a small colony in the Mid/Outer Rim.

That forces them to deal with political backstabbing and scheming, special projects of the Empire, dissidents, sabotage and bootlickers (if you got money and power those pop up all by themselves). They do their best to please those in power in order to get some of that power and keep an eye on their rivals to not get overtaken.

Our smuggler/governour awakened his Force senisitivity and does 'hunting and archeology' trips in search for knowledge about the Force. And since Jedis have that knowledge and are worth a lot of credits for bounties resulting in several dead padawans/knights. After the 4th they got the attention of Lord Vader and his Inquisitors.

Yesterdays game was quite interesting when an Inquisitor handed him a crystal containing the infos for a 'demonstration job' to proove his worth as a possible Inquisitor. My player was not happy about being on Lord Vaders leash feeling somewhat choked, proofing that the Lord of the Siths can 'force choke' people in different ways.

On the whole 'but Imperials should have Duty, because their are Imperials that selflessly work towards making the Empire a better place' I think that's slightly missing the point. Yes, Duty does give players stuff for investing the Rebellion, but that's largely the point: you are generally giving up short term gains or risking life and limb to make the Rebellion greater. That plays to the themes teamwork, building up, and hopes for a better future through hard work.

The Empire is not that . Now, I'm taking the Empire as an institution, not individuals, and the Empire that is, not the pie in the sky one that people point to Thrawn as an example of (Thrawn was a massive aberration to the Empire at large, and that was a fairly core part of his character). So what does the Empire, as an institution, do for the PCs in a campaign?

Looking at the EU's Imperial based stuff, the answer seems to be 'consistently **** them over'. Take Baron Soontir Fell as an example, whose entire career was this. Even Grand Admiral Thrawn was not immune: he was consistently playing whack-a-mole with incompetent subordinates, and the Empire's past actions are ultimately what got him killed (that and Leia being a better diplomat then him). Pallaeon was constantly trying to keep less competent superiors from wrecking everything until he finally got fed up and took the whole thing over, and even that didn't stop them! More recently, you have things like Callus trying to get the Inquisitors, the Navy and the ISB to work together so they don't all trip all over each other again, and they still don't like each other. On the flipside of the spectrum, if you go corrupt you have people like Mara Jade or Thrawn after you for breaking the rules.

Overall, an Obligation type mechanic makes more sense then a Duty one, because the Empire as an organization is almost as great an enemy to you as anything else you might face in the field. If you started drawing out themes for the Empire, you'd get things like 'Corruption', 'A House Divided', and 'Rule By Fear', none of which are particularly great for PCs working for the Empire.

Now, the Empire does have ridiculous resources, but that's probably better represented by higher starting Group Resource: a PC group starting with a cap ship for example would fit an Empire game well. But the Empire doesn't track incremental advantages to the cause. No, the Empire believes in results , cold and blatant. So some kind of side bar discussing rewards for major victories is very much warranted, day to day your trying to keep the Empire from ******* you over long enough to accomplish X (where X is anything from 'get rich' to 'make the Empire a better place').

I don't agree, but your observations have merit.

On the whole 'but Imperials should have Duty, because their are Imperials that selflessly work towards making the Empire a better place' I think that's slightly missing the point.
...
No, the Empire believes in results , cold and blatant.

This is kinda the thing. The argument isn't that Imperials are selflessly serving the Empire, the argument is that Duty, from a purely mechanical perspective, is a mechanism from which to gauge how a characters actions can be translated into those "results" of yours.

The "Combat Victory" Duty will generate rewards though your characters contribution towards the war, specifically something he does that can help achieve victory in battle. There's no requirement that he be doing it selflessly, or for the greater good, only that he do it. By doing so, his duty goes up, and when the threshold is reached, the entire party gets a bump in rank, clout and access to resources.

The difference would really only be a matter of themes.

A group of Rebel players would blow the dam, flooding the valley. This would contribute to the Sabotage Duty, as the valley would now be too muddy for the Empire to deploy walkers in the coming battle, and limit them to infantry and repulsor craft.

A group of Imperial players would blow the dam, flooding the valley. This would contribute to the sabotage Duty because the Rebels have to divert transport vehicles and personnel to evacuate the village that is now flooding. In the coming battle the Rebel infantry will have to get to the battlefield on foot, making them arrive at the battle tired and only with the weapons, equipment and supplies they could carry in.

See, the motivation for blowing the dam and getting the Duty reward is irrelevant, and the results (you impress your commanders) are the same. The difference is only in what blowing the dam means to the story. One version of events shows the players as smart underdogs, the other as heartless a-holes willing to make life miserable for the common man if that's what it takes.


But, you do hit a good point with:

the Empire as an organization is almost as great an enemy to you as anything else you might face in the field. If you started drawing out themes for the Empire, you'd get things like 'Corruption', 'A House Divided', and 'Rule By Fear', none of which are particularly great for PCs working for the Empire.

Which is an A+ observation.

The thing is, these don't have to be activated like Obligation or Duty, because they'd be better off as recurring themes throughout the campaign. Playing the villains allows you to do things like provide the players with credits in the form of a bribe or having the players get foiled by an "ally" or putting them in a position to get what the want by simple force. Things that are harder to do in a heroic campaign.

But that all gets back to what I've been saying...

The "Let's be bad guys" sourcebook would really need to spend a lot of time covering ground like this. Existing materials would keep "Chapter 4: Weapons of Oppression" fairly short. The thick part would be "Chapter 8: Designing Adventures for Jerks" and "Chapter 9: How to play a Jerk without being a Jerk."

This is kinda the thing. The argument isn't that Imperials are selflessly serving the Empire, the argument is that Duty, from a purely mechanical perspective, is a mechanism from which to gauge how a characters actions can be translated into those "results" of yours.

Hm. My thinking here was the Empire tends to be a lot more binary then the Rebellion in terms of punishment/reward. If you produce results, you tend to be rewarded well, and if you don't the punishments tend to be harsh (all the way up to 'You have failed me for the last time' Vader). Duty, as written, doesn't really reflect that, and I'd argue that getting demoted and exiled to Ilum (effectively losing ranks of Duty) is out right essential for an Imperials game, where 'my bosses might very well be working to screw me over' is very much a constant thing.

Well, that's part of it. the other part of it would be I don't really feel a reward mechanic fits particularly well with playing the bad guys, especially for Star Wars. This is more a meta level concern, but 'playing as the bad guys automatically as a base assumption means we get a trickle of awesome stuff' strikes me as not a terribly great way to get across you are playing the bad guys. A more... problem generative mechanic, like Obligation, that pretty much always insures your in some degree of hot water because of your actions, strikes me as being more self aware of the fact you are playing the bad guys.

Overall, I'd be inclined to leave rewards and punishments narrative, because they are going to be very swingingy and likely vary table by table.

The thing is, these don't have to be activated like Obligation or Duty, because they'd be better off as recurring themes throughout the campaign. Playing the villains allows you to do things like provide the players with credits in the form of a bribe or having the players get foiled by an "ally" or putting them in a position to get what the want by simple force. Things that are harder to do in a heroic campaign.

They don't have to, but Obligation, Duty and Morality all reinforce recurring themes for their game lines. Obligation is 'you are usually in trouble, and its generally your fault' for Edge, Duty is 'you work for the Rebellion, and in return the Rebellion looks after you' and Morality is 'good and evil matter to you, personally'. Of those three, I'd say Obligation fits the Empire the best, especially since you are going to need to be self aware on some level that your not playing as the good guys and are probably going to be facing problems that are, directly or indirectly, a result of your actions or of the Empire's actions.

The flip side of that is it provides a bit of a carrot for giving everything up to join the Rebellion: you don't have to deal with the Empire's **** anymore. Given how much Imperial defectors have shaped the Rebellion, I'd like to see at least some intensive to flip sides.

But that all gets back to what I've been saying...

The "Let's be bad guys" sourcebook would really need to spend a lot of time covering ground like this. Existing materials would keep "Chapter 4: Weapons of Oppression" fairly short. The thick part would be "Chapter 8: Designing Adventures for Jerks" and "Chapter 9: How to play a Jerk without being a Jerk."

Yeah, no argument there. I mean, some groups are just going to want to play the 'chaotic evil is fun and rewarding' style of Imperial play, or the 'Empire's (perceived) military efficiency is a good and desirable thing' style of play, but neither of those should really be the RAW or RAI for Star Wars, and certainly aren't now. Playing a character for the evil side without being evil themselves takes a certain level of work and mental adjustment, and advice for GMs on how to balance the fact the Empire is pretty straight up evil with player fun is also critical.

(Hell, there's an argument to be had for a section on 'How to Tweak Obligation, Duty and Morality for an Empire Game' as opposed to a unique mechanic, dependent on the GMs needs: a Inquisition party is going to have different needs then a TIE Ace group.)

Since we have all the tools we need with just oh-so-subtle tweaks, why not release Designing Adventures for Jerks and How to play a Jerk without being a Jerk as free downloadable PDFs? Oh sure, the GM may still have to fiddle about with Duty (mind you, I don't agree), but honestly a GM should be doing that when running a bog standard AoR campaign anyway.

Boom. Problem solved.

There is plenty of imperial hardware that hasn't appeared in FFG books yet so if they do an Imperial book and don't include a good gear and vehicle selection I will be very disappointed.

I think that there might be enough new material covered in a core rulebook that would be different for an Imperial slant, that it would be warranted. It would allow those only interested in the Empire side of things a way to get in the game without all the other resources. I know I would get this if it became available, if nothing else for the ability to build some cool Imperial NPC's. I'm sure if the players in my group thought they could fly TIE Interceptors they'd be all in for this concept.

Personally I don't treat the Empire as this monolithic entity of pure evil. There are probably billions of men and women serving in the Imperial Armed Forces; I somehow doubt that EVERY one of them is a miniature Palpatine. I consider it highly likely that it's a lot like the Wehrmacht, the Red Army, and how the US, UK, Germany, etc, are going: some evil sumbishes at the top (because scum rises to the top), a whole bunch of people just trying to get by and do what they consider is their duty, and very little in the way of questioning orders. There are probably a lot of GI Bill enlistees in the Imperial Army and Navy. They do what they have to do get through their enlistment alive. Yeah, there are plenty of corrupt and/or evil bastiches wearing the uniform, but that's no reason that a group of PC's couldn't be among the decent beings in the service of the Empire. Maybe they think that the Empire is a good idea and are just waiting for Palpatine to kick the bucket. Maybe they think they can do more good on the inside, changing the culture a little bit at a time. I don't know, I"m not running a group of Imperials.

There is SO much opportunity for moral ambiguity here. It's great. I love it. I think the grey areas are the places where the best roleplaying happens. Where you really discover who the characters are. And I think playing as an Imperial has a LOT of grey area.

Straying a lot from the OP: yes it would be nice, but there are plenty of other references to use in the interim (several have been kindly linked previously by others--thank you for that I had to dig out some of my old West End books).

To where the discussion has drifted: Each of my campaigns is tailored to my players. Let me share one of my table rules, though. For variety, the time period or feel (Rebels, Smugglers, Imperials, etc) has to change each campaign--one or the other.

My favorite EotE campaign to date was my first--BOOM 2013--an entire party of stormtroopers (my players love them) separated from their command. They saved settlements, got their own freighter, smuggled goods, used their Imperial codes to break the law...it was amazing.

The Empire has so many facets to it, The Mercenary just above had it right.

Personally I think you could use the age of rebellion book but use obligation and put more focus on the motivations of the players, particularly with the ambition motivation. I can see the argument for duty reflecting rank in the imperial government, it always seems to only bring about more responsibility and more consequences, not more benefits. A moff's increased influence and resources he or she REQUIRES in order to do what is expected of him, else he's going to find his career and possibly life coming to an end... This seems like obligation more then duty. And those few who truly prosper in the empire have a motivation dedicated to power and ambition... They never seem to benifit from it in a traditional duty sense.

Note that one of the obligations IS duty... And quite fitting for the grind that is "imperial service."

Oh and I just thought of is, incorporate the numerical benefits of duty into obligation, so as your rank grows in the empire, the mpheavier a weight it is on you! And it would also translate into what tools you have at your disposal

A sourcebook that outlined ranks and the typical authority and responsibilities they had would really help. And if Duty was used, it could somehow be tied to rank. As a character achieves imperial goals, they would rise in the command chain. That pilot that keeps breaking the rules, well, he may end not ever get promoted. I think it would be a fun element to add to the imperial side.

A sourcebook that outlined ranks and the typical authority and responsibilities they had would really help. And if Duty was used, it could somehow be tied to rank. As a character achieves imperial goals, they would rise in the command chain. That pilot that keeps breaking the rules, well, he may end not ever get promoted. I think it would be a fun element to add to the imperial side.

Another reason why Desslok linked the Imperial Sourcebook on page 1 of this thread. It may be an old Westend book, but it breaks down everything about the Empires command structure (civilian-->military). It's a phenomenal resource. I love Imperial campaigns, so I hope your next one turns out well.

Kestin, SEApocalypse, and Sarone on page 1 and Ghostofman on page 2 of this thread basically cover the types of material I would like to see in an AoR Imperial Sourcebook that really details the Imperial Military in a way the enhances my campaign. I would gladly pay $30-45 for such a sourcebook.

The WEG Imperial book shows how much material can be created, updated and expanded to bring in in line with the new Disney canon and FFG SW RPG line.

With regards to Duty vs. Obligation vs. something else for Imperial characters, I think I'd go with something else. Imo Imperial characters would have to look at two things:

1) Personal motivation for serving the Empire.

2) Getting results.

In an organization like the Empire what matters will be successfully accomplishing assignments and getting results. Be successful and you'll advance and get promoted. Fail and you'll get demoted or worse. The higher your rank, the more resources you'll be able to draw on.

One other difference between a Rebel and Imperial character would be equipment. For rebels, resources is an issue. You don't just acquire new or better equipment through requisition. Imperials are equipped with the gear they need for their assignment. On the other hand, custom equipment would be a lot more rare in the Empire group. Things are standardized, or for limited individuals maybe R&D test equipment.

Playing "evil" is different than being the "hero", but as long as people don't go Player-vs-Player, it's more a question of story feel, jobs, and which tools the party might employ to solve a problem/job. Also, character motivation might be a bit different.

In any case I can see a justification for some dedicated Imperial resources. A pilot might be a pilot, but an Inquisitor PC differs from an Inquisitor NPC for instance.

On 2016-04-28 at 3:35 PM, Kestin said:

What would be needed in an "Imperial Sourcebook/Core" is expanded information about Imperial military structure/goals like we have to the Rebels in AoR Core, potentially a new Spec for each career that really brings the Imperial flavor, an expanded GM section, and - most importantly - advice on running and playing as the Empire. Official starting boons for an Imperial campaign (I can tell you now that it's most likely a sanctioned Lambda, a few TIE Aggressors or Bombers refitted to have 2 crew, or assignment on a base), advice on how to reskin the AoR Specs as well as a short write-up on adjusting flavor for those careers from Rebel to Imperial, a quick note on using Duty as an Imperial, perhaps a short chart of new motivations/duties, and a new set of... what is it, 9 backgrounds? Maybe some notes on what a campaign from an Imperial perspective could look like. At most, that's halfway between a Core and a Sourcebook.

My GM recently ran us through a few sessions in a TIE Interceptor Squadron. He added things like medals and awards and rank advancement that really added something. To see official rules for that would be interesting.

I would add in a few starting locations; an imperial academy and some NPCs, a military station in the Outer Rim, an maybe a Gladiator Class or something similar. Put some fancy maps of layouts and that is a nice start. Should also focus on Imperial Center (Coruscant) and it’s key strategic elements. Could offer a few of these planets in this vein if interest and space allow. Similar to the region books.

Add in a couple of substantially different imperial trees each found within the careers of those presented in AOR CRB.

Then more droids, gear, and vehicles all straight out of imperial armouries; (examples, although some may already be present in material) mouse droid specs, Viper probe droid and Iden’s Battlefront 2 version. TIE advance, AT-AT Walkers, Imperial Speeder Bikes, Troop Transports, Bulk Cruisers etc. Armour could include; Jet trooper, Scout Trooper, Jungle Trooper, Snow Trooper and Desert Trooper and TIE fighter pilot Armor. Weapons that we see imps use in the films like the DL-19 (or w/e) and such are begging for this book. Gear could include secure communications in stormtrooper helmets, scuba and space attachments for plastoid Armor to allow for scuba and space faring troopers. ISB specific interrogation tools, spy gear etc. Shock collars and subjugation implants for Wookiee’s etc. Add in some ISB cybernetically upgraded beasts like Nexu and a few choice Imperial mounts (dewbacks?).

Should have some sample imperial checkpoints or a system for designing them. Customs, prisons, military bases, shipyards, ISB facilities. With a system for determining surveillance, security and responses.

As in the quoted text above - Imperial Duty, Backstories and something else that’s we use in our home brew that is truly RP spectacular... home locations.

Add in this feature as an optional starting benefit. It offers one rank in a skill, and one in a talent. Each Homeworld location is tied to a specific set of bonuses; I.E.

“Between the stars” One rank in either Piloting - Space, Knowledge: Outer Rim or Astrogation. One talent chosen between Galaxy Mapper Or Well Travelled. (Still cannot train above two ranks in any skill off creation)

This gives the book a selling feature beyond its wealth of imperial focus and offers plenty of ready information for smart GM’s to drop in to existing games.

This brings it to about a 220 page length, and ensures it’s worth the investment. Are these things absolutely needed to play as Imperials? No. But they make it easier on the GM’s and offer some unique flavour and perspective. Let’s face it, we’d all buy this book.

On 12/28/2017 at 10:14 PM, Khazadune said:

This brings it to about a 220 page length, and ensures it’s worth the investment. Are these things absolutely needed to play as Imperials? No. But they make it easier on the GM’s and offer some unique flavor and perspective. Let’s face it, we’d all buy this book.

You are so wrong ! I would not buy such a book, I would pre-order it threw my FLGS!

On 4/28/2016 at 1:34 PM, Kael said:

I don't really consider it a no brainer as I'm not sure FFG can convince people to shell out $60 for a book that will pretty much just be a retread of AoR.

I'd prefer that they would NOT make an.imperial core book, but I would buy it if they did so that I would continue to have a complete set.