I find myself in a quandary. One of my players, a Jedi, has commented on how the rules are good "because you can use the dark side in small parts, but that doesn't make you a dark side user". What he is referencing is that a character doesn't turn dark unless is below 30 morality.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder, etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

My concern is that a Jedi just using dark side here and there is still a problem. Its a Jedi on occasion tapping into the dark side and that simply in itself is not a good thing. So looking for some opinions, suggestions, comments.

Am I overthinking this and just go with the flow. Let him tap into dark side, give conflict and just keep on going or can there be something more to it?

If he uses the dark side without thought to the consequences, then I think I’d start giving him lots of extra conflict points.

In general, if a player starts meta-gaming and trying to abuse the system, then I’m not likely to put up with that.

Conflict arising from "use" of the Dark Side (and all of this is in my campaign and IMHO) shouldn't, inherently paint a Force User as a Dark Sider. Conflict from "murder , etc." should increase in size over time and also be primarily dependent upon circumstances. If they keep arbitrarily murdering people and other "evil" stuff, they should eventually get sufficient penalties to push them over....

How does the rest of the world treat him. His morality could say 50, but if he is known for doing dark acts, certain NPCs may not want to deal with him.

I find myself in a quandary. One of my players, a Jedi, has commented on how the rules are good "because you can use the dark side in small parts, but that doesn't make you a dark side user". What he is referencing is that a character doesn't turn dark unless is below 30 morality.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder, etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

My concern is that a Jedi just using dark side here and there is still a problem. Its a Jedi on occasion tapping into the dark side and that simply in itself is not a good thing. So looking for some opinions, suggestions, comments.

Am I overthinking this and just go with the flow. Let him tap into dark side, give conflict and just keep on going or can there be something more to it?

I agree, RAW is ripe to be gamed in such a way. This is a flaw in the system IMHO. Acts like murder should inflict a kind of "critical hit" to their Morality, such that they can't recover until they redeem themselves. If they murder again while they have such a stain on their soul, they basically go dark immediately. Also IMHO, small acts of kindness don't make up for egregious acts, no matter how much you do them.

That's probably not helpful if you stick with RAW. Within the system you could simply not allow them to increase their Morality until they redeem themselves (any positive die results are ignored), or you could give them automatic Conflict each session that makes it difficult to improve their Morality. But the player is likely to view any decision like that as arbitrary unless you completely reframe how you deal with moral issues.

And this is where I run into a bit of trouble. As RAW, it is there in black and white regarding what occurs when you use a dark side pip or take an action deemed dark. The conflict points are allocated. But this comment he made gave me pause. He is basically talking about 'gaming' the system. So can still be BAD while being GOOD. To me that feels weird and should be anything close to a true Jedi.

I have already advised about my concerns and that I have issues with just simply applying RAW and that's it. We are both well read on the books and listen to podcasts like Order 66. We both agree and understand that GM FIAT can apply heavily in this game as the books should only be looked at as a platform. The advantage and triumph tables are not all you can do, for instance. They are a guide and players should think of different ways they can use advantage and triumph, for example.

Though, what occurs the most is that when I start questioning the logic and am considering making amendments that to me sound logical though they will directly impact the players character, then that player will put up a fight. I may also raise this issue with the rest of the group for a 'round table discussion'.

As BradKnowles mentions, I am also not that fond of meta gaming and using the game mechanics to thwart what should be common sense. In this case the common sense is that Jedi just simply don't dip their toes into the dark side when they feel like it and then make good by being good for a while. Its not how the order works. Its perplexing. Further thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

IMO, the problem is not the use of the dark side itself.

The real problem is the free use of the dark side without consideration of what the consequences are, knowing that it’s easy to make up.

That kind of meta-gaming indicates that the PLAYER is on the dark side, regardless of where the PC is.

And that is the reason why I would start boosting the amount of Conflict you hand out. Any dark side that gets used without consideration of the consequences could be an automatic +10 conflict. Or, maybe you double the cost, every time he does it. Do that a few times, and you can get whacked with a whole crapton of Conflict for a single act.

Or, as “whafrog” mentions, maybe you should start using a critical hit system with regards to dark side points. Maybe every ten points gained requires a minor “redemption” and cannot be reduced or eliminated until such time as a suitable cleansing ceremony has been performed.

Or, you could just talk to the player and tell him to knock off that kind of crap, otherwise you’re going to be forced to do something about it.

Bradknowles, I am heavily leaning towards your last paragraph. Telling the player to knock it off. Its meta gaming and to me it does not suit the narrative of a Jedi. For all intensive purposes he is a good player. Most well read out of the group and understands that the GM is the final arbiter though when its directed at his character, the language changes.

Last game is a good example where his whole party was under arrest and being led to a high ranking individual. When they turn up there they all discover that a sith is in this persons presence. They are heavily outnumbered here and the scene was meant to be 'watched' rather than participate as it gives them a clue and sets their adventure up. Nevertheless the Jedi Player ignored all of that and announced he is attacking the sith. So as a result of that I gave him 4 conflict because he had no regard for his friends safety. he claimed he had anger as part of his morality and I accept though because he was behaving in line with his morality does not excuse him from conflict. In his mind he was doing playing it right. I mentioned that this is not the same perspective other characters would necessarily have and is the reason for me giving conflict. They could have easily just been executed then and there.

Think the conflict amount was little as he joked about standing firm on his opinion and what other perceive means nothing and shouldn't gather conflict. I think if I tighten the reigns there will be push back but I just have to do it as it feels wrong and I came here to make sure that I'm not being over protective on my position and view of the Jedi.

Conflict arising from "use" of the Dark Side (and all of this is in my campaign and IMHO) shouldn't, inherently paint a Force User as a Dark Sider. Conflict from "murder , etc." should increase in size over time and also be primarily dependent upon circumstances. If they keep arbitrarily murdering people and other "evil" stuff, they should eventually get sufficient penalties to push them over....

Skywalker and most other Jedi in the clone wars did their fair share of running around and killed and murdered tons of people, it still took years to affect them and it still did not drive most of them into the darkside before order 66 was executed.

With that said, I kind of disagree with what bradknowles said: If a player is constantly using darkside pips, the expectation that the character should care about is more of a meta-gaming aspect. The character might not even be aware that he is constantly tapping into the dark side, he is just using the force and obviously trying to be good. This might bite him in the long run because it is a habit which can easily abused, but in itself it is not the way to just fall to the darkside and the rules do represent this imho.

And btw: The whole jedi council rushed to kill Palpatine when they realized that he is a sith. It is the expected reaction of a jedi and more importantly it is expected from a jedi to serve the greater good even when this means sacrificing his friends.

"There is no death, there is the Force.", now if the chances were slim to actually succeed this might have been a dumb move. It still conflict worthy, but it is as well within the jedi tradition, a lot of traditions within the jedi order are questionable.

Something that isn't immediately clear here: is the character specifically trying to be a Jedi? "Light side force-user" is NOT automatically the same thing (nor are dark side force-users automatically Sith-ish). If they *are* trying to be one, do they actually know what the Jedi ideals and practices (not necessarily the same thing) were?

Using some dark side pips and doing some conflict-worthy stuff isn't inherently a problem for a light side user unless they're trying to push for and stay at paragon status, nor is it the case that light side = good alignment/D&Dish paladin malarkey.

As for limitations, the mechanical one against against gaming the system is that there's a random factor involved (the d10 roll) in morality changes, while the thematic one is that a character who actively decides that they can get away with the occasional murder as long as they regularly rescue kittens from trees is unhinged and liable to be seen that way by other people, regardless of where they stand on the internal morality scale.

I find myself in a quandary. One of my players, a Jedi, has commented on how the rules are good "because you can use the dark side in small parts, but that doesn't make you a dark side user". What he is referencing is that a character doesn't turn dark unless is below 30 morality.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder, etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

My concern is that a Jedi just using dark side here and there is still a problem. Its a Jedi on occasion tapping into the dark side and that simply in itself is not a good thing. So looking for some opinions, suggestions, comments.

Am I overthinking this and just go with the flow. Let him tap into dark side, give conflict and just keep on going or can there be something more to it?

Using darkside pips isn't really using the dark side itself but rather drawing on emotions to make his powers stronger and, in short amounts can be really beneficial to a force user in those short term struggles where his life may depend on it. Thats fine and the system really is designed to make use of those kind of actions, because these PC's have the deck stacked against them as force sensitives and will often need to draw on their full range of emotions just to survive.

Dark side actions meanwhile can and should be judged on a case to case basis. Sometimes a force sensitive may kill people they regret, or might act out of haste and other times they kill on cold blood or entirely by accident. These cases need to be judged on a case by case basis and I would be tempted, if he did a lot of cold blooded killing letting the conflict from each action rank up gradually. Or better yet, set up a bunch of circumstances that is designed to either force the player to stand for the light or take a greater tumble then expected. Generally though, if morality is rising and falling though that is brilliant! I get annoyed with people who never, ever commit a ill act despite having never written temple in their backstory.

That being said my PC is a Force Emergent, he received training from a sith artifact to learn how to fight the inquistors that constantly hounded him. As of late he is a wanted outlaw known for his heists and schemes, his crownstone being an attack on a Hutt's that stole a lot of valuable items from his vault just to call out a bounty hunter who killed his father and delivering a hyperdrive bomb to a star destroyers bridge that effectively ended the battle over the smugglers moon. While he genuinely wants to make the galaxy a better place, unlike most force sensitives of that time he wasn't a jedi and actively loathed them for a period. Still a lightside paragon for most part though.

Bradknowles, I am heavily leaning towards your last paragraph. Telling the player to knock it off. Its meta gaming and to me it does not suit the narrative of a Jedi. For all intensive purposes he is a good player. Most well read out of the group and understands that the GM is the final arbiter though when its directed at his character, the language changes.

Last game is a good example where his whole party was under arrest and being led to a high ranking individual. When they turn up there they all discover that a sith is in this persons presence. They are heavily outnumbered here and the scene was meant to be 'watched' rather than participate as it gives them a clue and sets their adventure up. Nevertheless the Jedi Player ignored all of that and announced he is attacking the sith. So as a result of that I gave him 4 conflict because he had no regard for his friends safety. he claimed he had anger as part of his morality and I accept though because he was behaving in line with his morality does not excuse him from conflict. In his mind he was doing playing it right. I mentioned that this is not the same perspective other characters would necessarily have and is the reason for me giving conflict. They could have easily just been executed then and there.

Think the conflict amount was little as he joked about standing firm on his opinion and what other perceive means nothing and shouldn't gather conflict. I think if I tighten the reigns there will be push back but I just have to do it as it feels wrong and I came here to make sure that I'm not being over protective on my position and view of the Jedi.

I agree with your ruling on this one. Technically the force really doesn't really care about what other people think; but rather he let his anger his emotional weakness dictate his actions. He acted out in anger in a situation that endangered others and likely he wouldn't have walked away alive from. That is conflict worthy and it's noted that while generally speaking it's not OK to assign conflict for thoughts rather then actions, this is probably one of the examples where it is acceptable.

Easiest solution I've found for this sort of thing is to only roll Morality at the end of the adventure, not the end of each session. I've been using this house rule for a while, and I've found it not only slows down the "jump to LS Paragon" issue but also makes earning Conflict be far more meaningful, since you could very likely carry that Conflict for two or three sessions.

Another common house rule I've seen is to use a smaller die type than a d10, such as a d8 or even a d6 if you really want to make being a LS Paragon hard to achieve/maintain and slipping to the dark side that much easier. I don't care for it, but it is an option to consider. Combine the lower die type with only rolling at the end of an adventure, and you'll probably see your problem player either shape up the character's act, or go diving nose first into the dark side of the Morality pool.

I think bradknowles generally has the right of it, in that the player is deliberately abusing the system. FYI, things like outright murder (killing a helpless target, even if they'd been attacking you just prior) earns the PC a minimum of 10 Conflict, and if the PC has a habit of using murder to solve their problems, then as the GM you're within your rights to assign higher and higher amounts of Conflict.

The Morality/Conflict rules were most likely written with the concept that GM and players would be adhering to the DBAD (Don't Be A D**k) guideline, which it sounds like this player is most certainly ignoring. While it's true that any RPG works best when players and GMs agree to not break the DBAD guideline, Morality is one of those mechanics that pretty much requires buy-in from the players to not abuse it.

IMO, the problem is not the use of the dark side itself.

The real problem is the free use of the dark side without consideration of what the consequences are, knowing that it’s easy to make up.

That kind of meta-gaming indicates that the PLAYER is on the dark side, regardless of where the PC is.

And that is the reason why I would start boosting the amount of Conflict you hand out. Any dark side that gets used without consideration of the consequences could be an automatic +10 conflict. Or, maybe you double the cost, every time he does it. Do that a few times, and you can get whacked with a whole crapton of Conflict for a single act.

Or, as “whafrog” mentions, maybe you should start using a critical hit system with regards to dark side points. Maybe every ten points gained requires a minor “redemption” and cannot be reduced or eliminated until such time as a suitable cleansing ceremony has been performed.

Or, you could just talk to the player and tell him to knock off that kind of crap, otherwise you’re going to be forced to do something about it.

Simple use of DS pips, to my mind, isn't "Gaming the system" any more than optimizing a character's Intellect is to ensure success at Mechanics and Computers... The entire system of Force Dice is, inherently, unbalanced. While there are the same number of LS and DS pips on the dice, statistically it's more likely to come up with DS than LS. Even getting up to 3 and 4 FP doesn't entirely mitigate this possibility, so even a "LS Paragon" will need to "use" the DS from time to time when they want to actually activate FP... To my mind, 3-5 conflict/session from pip usage is hardly something about which to be concerned in the grand scope of things. However, all the -other- stuff that is highlighted in the section on Morality (force as a first resort, murder, etc.) is a much truer indication of LS/DS leanings in a character.

Conflict arising from "use" of the Dark Side (and all of this is in my campaign and IMHO) shouldn't, inherently paint a Force User as a Dark Sider. Conflict from "murder , etc." should increase in size over time and also be primarily dependent upon circumstances. If they keep arbitrarily murdering people and other "evil" stuff, they should eventually get sufficient penalties to push them over....

Skywalker and most other Jedi in the clone wars did their fair share of running around and killed and murdered tons of people, it still took years to affect them and it still did not drive most of them into the darkside before order 66 was executed.

With that said, I kind of disagree with what bradknowles said: If a player is constantly using darkside pips, the expectation that the character should care about is more of a meta-gaming aspect. The character might not even be aware that he is constantly tapping into the dark side, he is just using the force and obviously trying to be good. This might bite him in the long run because it is a habit which can easily abused, but in itself it is not the way to just fall to the darkside and the rules do represent this imho.

And btw: The whole jedi council rushed to kill Palpatine when they realized that he is a sith. It is the expected reaction of a jedi and more importantly it is expected from a jedi to serve the greater good even when this means sacrificing his friends.

"There is no death, there is the Force.", now if the chances were slim to actually succeed this might have been a dumb move. It still conflict worthy, but it is as well within the jedi tradition, a lot of traditions within the jedi order are questionable.

It's generally established, at least to my mind, that the Jedi Council were drawn to the DS as a group during and before the Clone Wars... The entire concept of the Clone Wars and the fact that the Jedi were pressed into service to fight as Generals was, again, a sign that the DS had risen to prominence. This was even recognized by Obi-wan and Yoda as they looked back upon what happened and what they did.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder , etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

The Conflict Penalty for Murder is 10+. Start slapping him with 15, 20, and 30 conflict for stuff like that.

The system is set up to allow a Jedi to use the force when he really really has too even if he rolls all black, not to allow him to game the system so he can be a but whole. Slap him with all the conflict he needs to figure that out.

And btw: The whole jedi council rushed to kill Palpatine when they realized that he is a sith.

Actually they went to arrest him and he attacked them to be precise.

I'm not a real fan of Morality, but you say murder and that's a bit too general. The details of the act could lead to Conflict on top of the act, perhaps you should describe the murder. GM fiat might not be all that necessary as all the actions surrounding the murder can pile up a lot of Conflict.

As GMs, our jobs are to create and maintain a sustainable campaign for all players. Session Zero input aside, I may begin to believe how the Dark Side player may present a threat to game balance. Rather than force their hand into gaming as I see it, maybe we can offer better choices and clear consequences.

My girl is severely autistic. She can dress herself. When left to her own designs, she's selected winter boots and summer tank-tops that don't match fashion, but worse -will be incompatible with the weather. Rather than fight her budding independence, my wife and I pre-select two or three options that match temperature as well as expected activities. Now, our girl can flex her freedom of choice while staying in bounds of typical clothing use.

Returning to our game, perhaps the Dark Side user wants to add a dark pip to their X roll. Just as (insert bad conflict action) is about to happen, an NPC offers a McGuffin from their backpack that would otherwise assist in a similar way as the Dark Side pip. If they use the Dark Side pip, the same NPC who offered help will notice, and may be a blabbermouth about this behavior to someone the PCs will wish didn't learn of that behavior.

Wean the player off the need to use Dark Side points by adding a few emergency boons to replace whatever the Dark Side pip would be aiding. The player will come to see the GM as an ally in their actions without always needing to resort to the Dark Side. Give them a selection of choices if (too many) choices cause paralysis by analysis.

Consider trying this alternative to punishing the player, who will see this removal of a unique, fun option as hostile and Roger-Goodellian (No Fun League).

I'm going to take the above a step further: if the player really is looking at gaming the morality system (and not simply noting that you don't have to be a perfect saint to be a light side force user) then it's better to discard the morality system because it really only works with player buy-in to its theme of representing a character's internal emotional struggle.

Cranking up conflict values isn't going to make one bit of difference if the player doesn't care about that because being a dark side force user is just as valid as being a light side force user in this game (unlike older ones, which might be coloring both GM and player thinking here), so if the player wants a 'morally freewheeling' character then they use dark side pips rather than light side pips by default, some powers work a bit differently, and morality/conflict is tossed out the window in favor of obligation and/or duty.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder, etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

I am not a big fan of the morality rules, and drifting up to Paragon is one of huge reasons for this. One of the fixes proposed is not that you have to do good stuff, but that there has to be an opportunity to do bad stuff and turn away from it. if there's no opportunity for dark side gain, then there's no roll and you just don't go up.

So in your instance, with this patch in place, this guy will constantly, slowly, surely slip down the track.

On the other hand, "Hey, knock that S off. It's not thematically appropriate to the game or the genre" also works wonders.

My issue is that there will be sessions where he will just willingly tap into the dark side, murder, etc. and take the hit from the conflict but then next session do nothing but good stuff and get his morality back up again, hence never going below 30.

I am not a big fan of the morality rules, and drifting up to Paragon is one of huge reasons for this. One of the fixes proposed is not that you have to do good stuff, but that there has to be an opportunity to do bad stuff and turn away from it. if there's no opportunity for dark side gain, then there's no roll and you just don't go up.

So in your instance, with this patch in place, this guy will constantly, slowly, surely slip down the track.

On the other hand, "Hey, knock that S off. It's not thematically appropriate to the game or the genre" also works wonders.

That actually sounds like a good spin to it, but I would guess it is on fundamental ways against RAI, because the general trend in media is to allow the good guys to torture, murder and collect the ears of their (civilian) victims and still stay on the good side of things. Guess that is one of those "support our troops" things. ;-)

But from the basic principle I think you corrected the system to something much more interesting and more mature that way. At least at first glance. I might steal it.

I agree that there must be a chance to go dark to drift to the light. I tend not to roll morality every game session. I usually roll morality when I award XP, which is when they reach a "rest" point. Usually where they have a day or two downtime to reflect on their actions, train, etc.

I'm not in your game so I can't say, but I would like to make a distinction between killing(self defense or manslaughter) and murder.

Going there with the specific intention of killing someone is generally murder, going there with the intent to pick a fight but not kill and things get out of hand and someone dies is manslaughter. "By things get out of hand" I mean that unless a player coup de Gras an unconscious npc, the GM is the one who decides whether an NPC is incapacitated (rendered unconscious) or killed when they exceed their wound threshold. So to distinguish whether "murder" is really in the heart of the character I would recommend that you as the GM rules that some of the NPCS are incapacitated instead of killed and seeing whether the character finishes them off, if he does your are justified in increasing the conflict above raw for killing, if he let's them live them maybe he shouldn't be getting much if any conflict in this instance but have the NPCS come back later to make trouble for him, that way you put the player in a moral quandary where they are the one who has to choose between a larger than raw conflict or narrative repercussions. But not every combat encounter should present them with this quandary

I'd go with what others such as bradknowles have said which is that murder gives 10 + conflict. Not all 'murders' are as morality heinous as each other, so start with 10 and add more depending on the situation. Killing a serial killer because you know he will kill again if you let him live would be worth the minimum 10 in my mind while chopping off the head of a small child because you want their candy would be, well, actually that would be immediate Dark Side Falling. Remember, Anakin killed Count Dooku after he had already dishanded (hehe) him, while clearly a Dark Side act it still didn't immediately push him over.

It could be simply that the player meant he could play more of a "Gray Jedi" rather than gaming the system, or maybe he is gaming the system but because he feels he needs to in order to keep his character at a 'gray' level of morality that he rather go for than be a Paragon of Light. As others have said, speak to him but before telling him to knock it off it might be worth asking him just what he is aiming for with his character and his morality first, as it could simply be he is having issues with the Morality system just as much as you are! You haven't gone into details about just what he has done regarding murder etc so apologies if none of this is really relevant to your situation, its just that I can see it being a case of player wanting to play a more morally ambiguous character like The Punisher who fights for justice but is merciless in dealing it out.

I'd go with what others such as bradknowles have said which is that murder gives 10 + conflict. Not all 'murders' are as morality heinous as each other, so start with 10 and add more depending on the situation. Killing a serial killer because you know he will kill again if you let him live would be worth the minimum 10 in my mind while chopping off the head of a small child because you want their candy would be, well, actually that would be immediate Dark Side Falling. Remember, Anakin killed Count Dooku after he had already dishanded (hehe) him, while clearly a Dark Side act it still didn't immediately push him over.

It could be simply that the player meant he could play more of a "Gray Jedi" rather than gaming the system, or maybe he is gaming the system but because he feels he needs to in order to keep his character at a 'gray' level of morality that he rather go for than be a Paragon of Light. As others have said, speak to him but before telling him to knock it off it might be worth asking him just what he is aiming for with his character and his morality first, as it could simply be he is having issues with the Morality system just as much as you are! You haven't gone into details about just what he has done regarding murder etc so apologies if none of this is really relevant to your situation, its just that I can see it being a case of player wanting to play a more morally ambiguous character like The Punisher who fights for justice but is merciless in dealing it out.

The only thing I might add is that someone who is geninuely a serial killer of a mass genocidist might warrant less. Otherwise I would be concerned with "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality.

Though that's themed exact, some people can only be executed because the Jedi can't actually turn them over. E.g. dark times