TL;DR - Would you narratively force a character to make an action without letting them roll to stop it if it helps the narrative of their personal story during a one on one session?

I have a player who just fell to the Dark side of the Force in my FaD game in a group of Light side aspiring-Jedi. This was something he planned on, his character was always making the "bad" decisions and we planned that he would fall, have a private session with me where he does some terrible things that make him want to go back to the Light side.

The one on one session is coming up and I wanted to make it memorable, but also kind of dark (he asked for that) so his character can experience true evil thoughts and actions. I planned on having him go to a Sith cult shrine and finding an artifact with the "soul" or "Force-essence" of a long-dead Sith. He will pretend to be his Father (he has amnesia and only remembers his father was the leader of this cult from long ago) and it will tell him to steal a jewel that he could fashion into a powerful lightsaber.

Once he gets on track to steal the jewel, while he is stealing it he will encounter a young girl (think 8-10 years old) who will catch him in the act. The artifact will speak to him and tell him to kill her so he isn't discovered and that he must make sacrifices to gain power. This is where I run into the conundrum, do I have the artifact "possess" him by filling him with a white-hot rage and make him kill the girl without being able to stop it? I know he wants to do something terrible, but in the moment I have a feeling he will back off because he feels bad about it (player knowledge, not character knowledge).

Should I risk making it a check the artifacts influence vs his resilience? I was thinking since much of this session will be narrative it would make sense to narrate that he kills this little girl without giving him an option...is this a bad idea or can you think of some other horrible decision I could have him make...like 2 horrible decisions, kill the girl or maybe kill a bunch of innocent people if she starts screaming that he is stealing from her parents?

No you shouldnt take the choice away from the player. It will remove any actual emotion from the act. As a matter of fact, if he is wanting to go back to the light, that seems like a good way to know which way to go.

Making him kill the kid just means you did it, not him

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

No you shouldnt take the choice away from the player. It will remove any actual emotion from the act. As a matter of fact, if he is wanting to go back to the light, that seems like a good way to know which way to go.

Making him kill the kid just means you did it, not him

I guess I agree with this partially, which is why I posted this to begin with. That was also part of my thought process that his character didn't kill the kid, I forced him to as GM. I do think that even if that were to happen though, he would still feel bad for his actions even though he was forced to do it.

Do you think I should do a Force check with influence to make him do it, but leave the possibility that he doesn't want to, or just give him the option and let it be?

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

While I appreciate most responses from this forum, telling me that I have a very weak story because I resort to this imagery, is not only rude but it's a ridiculous statement to even make. You don't know anything else any my players or campaign, and just because you don't like dark storylines doesn't mean others don't.

I felt this is a prime example, when Anakin took orders to kill the younglings in Start Wars Epsisode 3, that was a moment where knew full well what he was doing and yet still chose to follow those orders. It was at that time that you knew for a fact his fall to the Dark side was complete.

Be vague. Describe being caught, tell him about the sudden skip of his heart beat, the burning in his skin, how the grip of his weapon feels in his hands. But never describe the girl.

"What are you doing?" a shrill voice calls out. In an instant your heart leaps into your throat as you realize the question was meant for you.

It's impossible to tell if your heart stopped beating or if time ceased to flow, but they pick up again seemingly one second in the past.

"What are you doing?" you hear again in the same shrill tone. Your skin burns red at being caught in the act and that outstretched arm trembles under its own weight slightly.

"What are you doing?" The weapon you carry, holstered where it belongs, feels so light now, and your gun hand feels so tired, so heavy. What are you doing as you lay your hand upon the grip? What are you doing as you draw it up, and out of its safe confines in its bolster.

What are YOU doing? You can see what you need, feel it in your empty hand, arm outstetched so far, and yet you do not possess it. What are YOU doing? The voice, your father, it calls to you from beyond, firm, stately, and confident. You need this. Quickly. Dispatch the interloper.

What. Are. You. Doing?

I felt this is a prime example, when Anakin took orders to kill the younglings in Start Wars Epsisode 3, that was a moment where knew full well what he was doing and yet still chose to follow those orders. It was at that time that you knew for a fact his fall to the Dark side was complete.

The difference here is that Anakin has a means of justification (however poor it might be): the younglings are Jedi, and Jedi are the enemy. From your description, this little girl is just an unfortunate witness, there's no equivalent source of rationalization. Sounds like the worst she can do is "tell on him", which IMHO doesn't reach the same dilemma potential (unless you want to share what telling on him means). It also sounds like the kid is anonymous, which is pretty much guaranteed to elicit zero response. The kid has to have a history to mean something.

FWIW, I would never narrate what the PC does. Nor would I leave such a fate up to a dice roll. If you give the NPC enough meaning (which IMHO isn't there yet), then you've done your job providing the ethical dilemma. If the player decides not to engage in the horrific act then that's entirely their call. Perhaps that is all that is needed to give the player what they want, just the suggestion of how close they came to, in Maul's words, "slaughter of the innocent".

It also doesn't feel like the PC is at risk in your scenario of anything other than "the dark side". But those are just words. A player doesn't feel the PC's pain. So maybe you could include something risky. If they don't stop the kid from X, they're going to be maimed (and not in a way that credits and cybernetics can easily fix), or they could possibly die. This makes it a more difficult choice. If they choose the light, then it's not just the chance of "avoiding the dark side", but an actual bounce towards redemption. This does also allow for a dice rolls, because failure doesn't necessarily mean giving in, it could mean the failure to act either way, thus losing to the dark side and also suffering whatever effect you have in mind (e.g.: maiming).

I agree with Whafrog, there needs to be more meat on this bone as far as the emotions elicited by having to kill someone. It shouldn't just be a random. It should be difficult, and it should be the PCs choice. If they choose not to kill, make something appropriately damaging happen, or simply have them simply resolve the situation in a more light-side manner and stave off their fall for another date (which would be a huge buzz-kill and encourage them to bite more easily the next time, if a fall is indeed what they are looking for). The agency should always lie with the PC, your power lies in creating the consequences of their actions.

TL;DR - Would you narratively force a character to make an action without letting them roll to stop it if it helps the narrative of their personal story during a one on one session?

I wouldn't advise removing the player's agency here - in this crucial story moment, what you build together will likely be greater than anything either of you can come up with alone.

Obviously, your player wants to play the bad guy, even though he himself might not be that bad. So he has to make his own decisions.

The real challenge in playing an unredeemably evil character to a sane player is coming up with truly revulsive ideas and then just act those out.

The only way, in my opinion, you're allowed to influence him in this case is with showing him the carrot and the stick.

The really satisfiying moments, when playing a CE cultist in the old days, were when everybody just starred at you and said: "You didn't just do THAT, did you?"

I like the idea of compelling the player to do the bad thing. If the player really wants to resist he can upgrade his rolls with Destiny points and find arguments to add boosts to his pool. This would create a moment when he might desperately try to resist the dark side by building the best possible dice pool he can

This way you can use the games mechanics to give more meaning to his attempts to resist. If he succeeds he knows how close he came and how loss of control can be a horrible thing. It will give him a reason to pull away from the dark side. On the other hand forcing his hand means he lost control, literally. He was in no way able to stop his descent into the darkness, which again can provide him with a reason to turn away from the darkness (remorse from what he has done etc.) or even a reason to descend further.

The Dark Side of the force is all about losing control. Taking the power to choose in one situation such as this is a very powerful way to actually show the player and the character what the idea of losing oneself to the Dark Side can mean.

Be vague. Describe being caught, tell him about the sudden skip of his heart beat, the burning in his skin, how the grip of his weapon feels in his hands. But never describe the girl.

"What are you doing?" a shrill voice calls out. In an instant your heart leaps into your throat as you realize the question was meant for you.

It's impossible to tell if your heart stopped beating or if time ceased to flow, but they pick up again seemingly one second in the past.

"What are you doing?" you hear again in the same shrill tone. Your skin burns red at being caught in the act and that outstretched arm trembles under its own weight slightly.

"What are you doing?" The weapon you carry, holstered where it belongs, feels so light now, and your gun hand feels so tired, so heavy. What are you doing as you lay your hand upon the grip? What are you doing as you draw it up, and out of its safe confines in its bolster.

What are YOU doing? You can see what you need, feel it in your empty hand, arm outstetched so far, and yet you do not possess it. What are YOU doing? The voice, your father, it calls to you from beyond, firm, stately, and confident. You need this. Quickly. Dispatch the interloper.

What. Are. You. Doing?

I like this very much...

Maybe have the girl run in with her father and his friends... they are all security guards coming back from duty...

They spot the guy stealing and open fire... he knows he's caught, he can't escape unless he fights them all... give some clues each rounds while he dispatches the guards that his rage and anger are taking over.... like when you see red and butcher everyone... then tell him that there is one last person in the doorway, aiming a gun at him... a last obstacle to his freedom... one last person to dispatch before he can escape... and after he has struck down the girl... he goes over the body and can see the dead girl clearly after the fog of war settles.... blaster fire, alarms, smoke and fire... everything to make the encounter chaotic.

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

While I appreciate most responses from this forum, telling me that I have a very weak story because I resort to this imagery, is not only rude but it's a ridiculous statement to even make. You don't know anything else any my players or campaign, and just because you don't like dark storylines doesn't mean others don't.

I felt this is a prime example, when Anakin took orders to kill the younglings in Start Wars Epsisode 3, that was a moment where knew full well what he was doing and yet still chose to follow those orders. It was at that time that you knew for a fact his fall to the Dark side was complete.

Well, you have many choices now available to you, in no particular order. You could "Report" my post to FFG Administration, citing whatever reasons you dislike. I think they will look at my reply to your open-invitation of opinion, find no offensive attacks, my opinion, and a history of posts I wrote championing the game for inclusion.

Then, there's a bunch of other stuff you could do, too, but frankly, you asked for an opinion, didn't like my opinion of your game play, and cry foul.

Yeah, I don't care what else you decide to do at this point. You seemed to clearly WANT the child death, and wanted the forums to validate your style of game play.

So, game on, and maybe refrain from asking for opinions in the Post Titles...

I'm a rookie GM so take any advice I offer with that in mind. If this was my campaign I would OOC talk with the player and give them the option to allow me some creative control over the climatic scene.

If the player agreed here is what I would do. At the ultimate moment of being interrupted I would narrate it as tge PC blacks out as the Force overcomes them and as they recover find the NPC dead before them.

By doing this I believe you can open the situation up to ither possibilities. Maybe the PC doesn't murder the NPC, but believes they do. This allows for future story pregession to reveal via Force Vision or dream that they resisted the Dark Side, but the struggle subdued the PC and the Dark Side Force killed the NPC itself.

Maybe the PC discovers they did murder the NPC in a terrible way and that leads to another didcovery about themselves abd their powers.

Just my 2cents on the matter if you were to narrate the situation.

Well, you have many choices now available to you, in no particular order. You could "Report" my post to FFG Administration, citing whatever reasons you dislike. I think they will look at my reply to your open-invitation of opinion, find no offensive attacks, my opinion, and a history of posts I wrote championing the game for inclusion.

Then, there's a bunch of other stuff you could do, too, but frankly, you asked for an opinion, didn't like my opinion of your game play, and cry foul.

Yeah, I don't care what else you decide to do at this point. You seemed to clearly WANT the child death, and wanted the forums to validate your style of game play.

So, game on, and maybe refrain from asking for opinions in the Post Titles...

I do appreciate your other posts and honestly the only thing I disliked about your original post was "(very weak, if resorting to this imagery)" it just felt like a personal attack on my storytelling ability. Sorry if I overreacted to it, I was just annoyed because it felt like you told me I am bad at what I do. Either way I wanted something dark, I figured killing an innocent is as dark as it gets, and none of the people at my table have any kids so it doesn't hit home as I suppose it would to parents, so once again I am sorry if I offended anyone by pushing that.

Thank you for all the posts so far! Here is another really long addition to give some more insight into my story and why I am running this:

Well, you have many choices now available to you, in no particular order. You could "Report" my post to FFG Administration, citing whatever reasons you dislike. I think they will look at my reply to your open-invitation of opinion, find no offensive attacks, my opinion, and a history of posts I wrote championing the game for inclusion.

Then, there's a bunch of other stuff you could do, too, but frankly, you asked for an opinion, didn't like my opinion of your game play, and cry foul.

Yeah, I don't care what else you decide to do at this point. You seemed to clearly WANT the child death, and wanted the forums to validate your style of game play.

So, game on, and maybe refrain from asking for opinions in the Post Titles...

I do appreciate your other posts and honestly the only thing I disliked about your original post was "(very weak, if resorting to this imagery)" it just felt like a personal attack on my storytelling ability. Sorry if I overreacted to it, I was just annoyed because it felt like you told me I am bad at what I do. Either way I wanted something dark, I figured killing an innocent is as dark as it gets, and none of the people at my table have any kids so it doesn't hit home as I suppose it would to parents, so once again I am sorry if I offended anyone by pushing that.

Killing children as a rite of passage to the Dark Side might be "weak storytelling"; but, it is indisputably Canon. Indeed, it probably is weak, as it is from the Prequels, but it fits the universal narrative properly, nevertheless. I'm a father of one (soon to be two); yes, it does feel different seeing children being hurt in fiction. But, that's what it is, fiction, and I can separate it from reality.

And yes, Conan, your initial answer was, at least, condescending and judgemental. The follow-up didn't even get better. On the other hand, who could expect good manners from a paleolithic criminal?

The OP openly asked for opinions. I gave mine. No apologies given for my opinion of RPGs. Read my signature.

Here's how I justify calling the murdering of children as "weak:"

Add up all of the on-screen footage related to the murdering of younglings at the Jedi Temple. I contend it accounts for less than a single digit percentage of overall storyline. Hence, murdering children to fall deeply under sway of the Dark Side is such a small amount of canon, I felt that there are much better, inventive, and storytelling ways to recreate the same thing. Also note how cameras cut-away from any actual murdering, likely because of fan sensitivities. While your game may want to revel in those elements, this represents such a small fraction of canon and opportunities, it feels like far too easy of a grab of nasty options.

Add to this discussion of the GM taking away the player's choices. Wait- this group already seems willing to go Dark, so why punish a player for doing what the character was likely going to do?

Add to my collected prior posts about encouraging children to play this game, and readers might see why I would be opposed to a playgroup like this one. I'm allowed to disagree.

Now, I qualified my opinions, citing a minuscule example of canon to which not even Lucas would fully, visually commit. I also add my personal opinions, as it relates to the murdering of kids as story.

The defense rests...

And yes, Conan, your initial answer was, at least, condescending and judgemental. The follow-up didn't even get better. On the other hand, who could expect good manners from a paleolithic criminal?

You win the internet for your insightful takes on my username. Well done- it made me smile. Thanks.

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

Okay, you've voiced your opinion here and met resistance with your evaluation of the story, and we've seen where this canonically happens, so my question to you is: how would you do it?

(I thought the little dude with the funny hat was the thief, not Conan!)

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

Okay, you've voiced your opinion here and met resistance with your evaluation of the story, and we've seen where this canonically happens, so my question to you is: how would you do it?

(I thought the little dude with the funny hat was the thief, not Conan!)

Easy- I advocate for myself and quit the game. I don't want to play with a group that would allow kids to be killed as specific storyline advancement.

Look at classic literature from any culture- how often is the main hero also a child murderer? In the rare instances in which they do murder kids for the sake of power, how vital was that piece in the total character plot? If child murder was such a strong plot device, wouldn't we see more of it throughout history?

Killing kids is never the mantra of any heroic group. It's a means to an end, and could merit as much attention as having a character roll for successful shaving. Pffft- more deaths occur in bathrooms than many people may suppose.

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to run from games where children or inherently innocent characters are specifically murdered to tell a (very weak, if resorting to this imagery) story.

I enjoy RPGs as an escape from the soul-crushing news stories that proliferate our multimedia lives. As GM, I include my children as players in one game.

To answer your question, NO, I would not force the kill.

Okay, you've voiced your opinion here and met resistance with your evaluation of the story, and we've seen where this canonically happens, so my question to you is: how would you do it?

(I thought the little dude with the funny hat was the thief, not Conan!)

Easy- I advocate for myself and quit the game. I don't want to play with a group that would allow kids to be killed as specific storyline advancement.

Look at classic literature from any culture- how often is the main hero also a child murderer? In the rare instances in which they do murder kids for the sake of power, how vital was that piece in the total character plot? If child murder was such a strong plot device, wouldn't we see more of it throughout history?

Killing kids is never the mantra of any heroic group. It's a means to an end, and could merit as much attention as having a character roll for successful shaving. Pffft- more deaths occur in bathrooms than many people may suppose.

Er, my apologies, I was hoping you could provide an alternate storyline for OP; I respect your feelings on the matter and you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation for them. What I'm aiming for is exercising the storytelling muscles to build better stories.

No problems. I think I can steer some direction with this question.

That any player (like myself, in this example) might willingly walk away from a game based on content underscores the value of Session Zero. In these pre-game meetings, we all have an opportunity to weigh in on what we expect from the game. In this instance, one player may express a strong desire to RP a Dark-Side user. When I hear this declaration, I'd politely ask that innocent children not be exploited for game play. For further clarification, I'd restate my request as to avoid any in-game actions that would prompt real-life newspaper crime headlines about kids (i.e.: no r*pe, no killing, etc.). If the group could agree to this caveat, I'd welcome the players.

I'm a father of small kids. Professionally, I write comic books for kids. My doctoral research on autistic child communication strategies has been blah blah lots of stuff points to the fact that I strongly advocate for children. In my leisure, I don't want realistic portrayals of more violence on kids. I won't apologize for my choice to leave any game in which that became vital to any other player's character.

I'd also strongly advocate how no GM should take away a player's actions. If such a Dark Side user, that player spent a lot of attention and XP on making their Dark Side character. I don't see a lot of rules by which a GM usurps control of a player's character. If we got to this point, perhaps the Dark Side user killing kids isn't the easy walk through the garden as anticipated.

I'd have to start at Session Zero and get buy-in from everyone about how the Dark Side will be used mechanically and thematically.

EDIT: Not even FFG will allow discussion of 'grape - g'

And yes, Conan, your initial answer was, at least, condescending and judgemental. The follow-up didn't even get better. On the other hand, who could expect good manners from a paleolithic criminal?

You win the internet for your insightful takes on my username. Well done- it made me smile. Thanks.

Alas, you didn't take the bait.

EDIT: Not even FFG will allow discussion of 'grape - g'

To be fair, they also don't allow referring to Nightwing, Richard John Grayson, the original Robin, by the name he most commonly goes by. But then, DC Comics' own boards (when they had them) censored his nam, too.