38 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

Hey Tramp, earning Conflict is not giving into the dark side. It's the Morality roll at the end of each session that represents you resisting the lure of darkness. You have a view on Conflict that a lot of new players to this system have and I will refuse to judge you on that. It's a very hard lesson to unlearn and until you dig deeply into the Mechanics of Conflict through play it's actually rather hard to visualise.

From a meta standpoint a D10 has an average roll of 5.5, if you earn less than that each session then your character is probably a really good person. If they earn around that amount or slightly higher then they are kinda neutral. If they consistently exceeded roughly 7 then those people will fall. Now it is possible to fall very quickly, a few selfish murders and you're on your way, but it's also intentionally hard to not gain a single point.

if you look at most Force Powers they have a sweet spot of around 4 Force Points to activate a complex power. FR3 is highly likely to roll 4 Force Points, but a DS point is likely. So you have to make a decision about how effective the power is going to be.

2 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

I still didn't see you @Tramp Graphics actually respond to my large polite post about the D10 roll actually representing you character giving into the dark side. Did you have an opinion on that or not?

Actually, I think I touched upon it briefly, but probably had more posts to respond to. I understand the Conflict and Morality rules pretty well actually. While I may not have had a chance to actually play the game yet, I've had the book for over a year now, and have gone over the rules cover to cover multiple times in order to get a decent understanding of how they work. The very fact that it is very difficult to not use DSPs and to try to not get any Conflict, by always choosing the right option is what makes it a challenge. The whole point of the Conflict system, as I read it is not so much, that accepting a little Conflict helps in going up in morality, but rather, the less Conflict you earn when confronted by a situation where Conflict is possible , the greater your chance of going up in Morality.

This also covers the use of Dark Side Force Points. The whole reason why there are more sides with DSPs on a given Force Die is to show the temptation of the "quick and easy path" that is the Dark Side, but the Light Side, (with the often greater number of pips per side on the die) is stronger but more difficult, and as a character , Korath chooses the more difficult path of the Light Side. This is a character, under both WEG and D20 OCRB/RCRB, who never earned a single Dark Side Point . This is also why I said in the beginning when this little side track got started, that he would almost never use a Dark Side Force Point. And with a Force Rating of 3, he has a far greater chance of rolling 4 Light Side Force Points anyway, much more likely than rolling all Dark Side Force Points.

3 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

That basically describes "Duty to Rescue", which is in several forms of real life law in different degrees. Also, it should be noted that those who are force users are held to a high standard, especially if they are "Jedi", as their entire purpose is to serve & protect.

The Jedi way is to suppress all emotion, as most forms of love interfere with the Jedi way of not being attached or possessive, etc... The only form of love they would encourage is compassion for everyone, a general selfless love, which would allow them to hold precious life in the galaxy & motivate them to do whatever they could to preserve all life if it's in their power.

We have no canon evidence that the Jedi way was different during the galactic republic than it was in the old republic and there is no jedi order as of right now in the canon... Considering the title of the new film coming in December, it's very likely there won't be a reformed Jedi order.

That being said, I agree that love is a positive emotion but it does not fit in with the Jedi way of life as we know it.

There is no such thing as an "impossible" choice, unless your free will is removed from the equation and at that point, it is not a choice. The proposed scenarios are a choice: use your power to save someone or don't.

Tramp: You ask me to do the impossible.

Everyone else: that, is why you fail.

10 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

That basically describes "Duty to Rescue", which is in several forms of real life law in different degrees.

As it f@arken should be!

21 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

That basically describes "Duty to Rescue", which is in several forms of real life law in different degrees. Also, it should be noted that those who are force users are held to a high standard, especially if they are "Jedi", as their entire purpose is to serve & protect.

The Jedi way is to suppress all emotion, as most forms of love interfere with the Jedi way of not being attached or possessive, etc... The only form of love they would encourage is compassion for everyone, a general selfless love, which would allow them to hold precious life in the galaxy & motivate them to do whatever they could to preserve all life if it's in their power.

We have no canon evidence that the Jedi way was different during the galactic republic than it was in the old republic and there is no jedi order as of right now in the canon... Considering the title of the new film coming in December, it's very likely there won't be a reformed Jedi order.

That being said, I agree that love is a positive emotion but it does not fit in with the Jedi way of life as we know it.

There is no such thing as an "impossible" choice, unless your free will is removed from the equation and at that point, it is not a choice. The proposed scenarios are a choice: use your power to save someone or don't.

No. The choice is to give in the fear or not. It is to give in to the Dark Side (however briefly) or not. That is the ultimate choice here. At least according to the Trials of the Flesh. Could you save that person by giving in? sure. But I say you could still save him/her by not giving in and using the DSPs. The Jedi way of the prequels was to suppress emotion, but even Yoda realized, in the end, that this was not a good thing. If you read some of the really ancient versions of the Jedi Code, it is worded quite differently from the more "modern" one people are more familiar with:

Quote

Emotion yet Peace

Ignorance yet knowledge

Passion yet serenity

Chaos yet Harmony

Death yet the Force

This version of the Jedi code acknowledged that people feel emotion, but the goal of a Jedi is to not let that emotion cloud their judgement , and, in particular, never act out of anger, fear, jealousy, hate, or aggression. Even Uncle George said that there is no law against Jedi feeling love or having "relationships" with others of the opposite sex, or even intimacy. Rather, what is forbidden is forming attachments that could cloud your judgement. A Jedi has to be able to let go of attachments . This was why Yoda told Anakin to be willing to let go of his fear of losing someone.

There is also a difference between the dogma of what the Jedi Council allowed, and what the Force allows. Going by the rules in the book, for instance, In the Influence power, it lists specific emotions that are Light Side or Dark Side emotions. The Light Side emotions include, but are certainly not limited to: Peace, tranquility, and friendliness, etc. whereas the Dark Side emotions include: anger, fear, hate, rage, etc.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. The choice is to give in the fear or not. It is to give in to the Dark Side (however briefly) or not. That is the ultimate choice here. At least according to the Trials of the Flesh. Could you save that person by giving in? sure. But I say you could still save him/her by not giving in and using the DSPs. The Jedi way of the prequels was to suppress emotion, but even Yoda realized, in the end, that this was not a good thing.

Nobody asked the Force if it wanted to be manipulated by Jedi/Sith/Adepts. Sounds like an abusive relationship to me where only one sides gets what it wants. Perhaps we feel the white pips are the Force agreeing with our actions? I don't recall the Force wanting me to succeed on that Mind Trick check over a feisty Rodian who wanted to shoot my friend instead of letting him go...

Maybe passing the check is the Force trying to tell me something.....uuurrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh

Just now, masterstrider said:

Nobody asked the Force if it wanted to be manipulated by Jedi/Sith/Adepts. Perhaps we feel the white pips are the Force agreeing with our actions? I don't recall the Force wanting me to succeed on that Mind Trick check over a feisty Rodian who wanted to shoot my friend instead of letting him go...

Maybe passing the check is the Force trying to tell me something.....uuurrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh

Actually, that's not entirely wrong. The Jedi philosophy (and that of pretty much every Light Side sect) is that following the Light Side, and, and tapping in to the Light when using the Force, is following the Will of the Force, whereas using the Dark Side is bending the Force to your will instead. Thus, by only using Light Side Force points, you are following the Will of the Force, whereas using Dark Side Force points is selfishly bending the Force to your will.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

9 minutes ago, masterstrider said:

Nobody asked the Force if it wanted to be manipulated by Jedi/Sith/Adepts. Perhaps we feel the white pips are the Force agreeing with our actions? I don't recall the Force wanting me to succeed on that Mind Trick check over a feisty Rodian who wanted to shoot my friend instead of letting him go...

Maybe passing the check is the Force trying to tell me something.....uuurrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh

Actually, that's not entirely wrong. The Jedi philosophy (and that of pretty much every Light Side sect) is that following the Light Side, and, and tapping in to the Light when using the Force, is following the Will of the Force, whereas using the Dark Side is bending the Force to your will instead. Thus, by only using Light Side Force points, you are following the Will of the Force, whereas using Dark Side Force points is selfishly bending the Force to your will.

To quote Treebeard: "That sounds like ORC mischief to me!"

Rephrased: Of course the Jedi would say that, it's in their self interest to say that they're using it the right way...

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. The choice is to give in the fear or not. It is to give in to the Dark Side (however briefly) or not. That is the ultimate choice here. At least according to the Trials of the Flesh. Could you save that person by giving in? sure. But I say you could still save him/her by not giving in and using the DSPs. The Jedi way of the prequels was to suppress emotion, but even Yoda realized, in the end, that this was not a good thing. If you read some of the really ancient versions of the Jedi Code, it is worded quite differently from the more "modern" one people are more familiar with:

This version of the Jedi code acknowledged that people feel emotion, but the goal of a Jedi is to not let that emotion cloud their judgement , and, in particular, never act out of anger, fear, jealousy, hate, or aggression. Even Uncle George said that there is no law against Jedi feeling love or having "relationships" with others of the opposite sex, or even intimacy. Rather, what is forbidden is forming attachments that could cloud your judgement. A Jedi has to be able to let go of attachments . This was why Yoda told Anakin to be willing to let go of his fear of losing someone.

It's morally wrong that anyone, even a fictional character, would agree with the idea of letting someone die when they have the power to save them. As I mentioned with "Duty to Rescue", there is oftentimes a legal duty placed upon people to save others in danger. Obviously countries & states have variations on how far one can go but generally the idea is if you can do something to help, you should .

Destiny Points are a very interesting idea but you can't use them as an end-all be-all get out of a dire situation card every time your buddy falls off a cliff. Eventually, your GM is going to say "No, this is an uncivilized rocky mountain planet & there are no hand holds, vines or speeders nearby to grab onto," or you will run out of Destiny Points by spending them all so quickly that when you need it to save your pal, you won't be able to. Besides, the Destiny Point "Deus Ex Machina" method is Destiny, Fate & the will of the Force acting in the scene and has nothing to do with your character's personal actions, so in the event that a character falls off a cliff, you attempt to catch them with Move, roll all dark side points & opt to not use the power but flip a Destiny to save them, I'd give the character conflict, as they still made that choice not to save someone when they could. The Destiny point wasn't the character's actions in this scenario, so they still chose to let someone die, it was only by the will of the Force that the person survived.

5 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

It's morally wrong that anyone, even a fictional character, would agree with the idea of letting someone die when they have the power to save them. As I mentioned with "Duty to Rescue", there is oftentimes a legal duty placed upon people to save others in danger. Obviously countries & states have variations on how far one can go but generally the idea is if you can do something to help, you should .

Destiny Points are a very interesting idea but you can't use them as an end-all be-all get out of a dire situation card every time your buddy falls off a cliff. Eventually, your GM is going to say "No, this is an uncivilized rocky mountain planet & there are no hand holds, vines or speeders nearby to grab onto," or you will run out of Destiny Points by spending them all so quickly that when you need it to save your pal, you won't be able to. Besides, the Destiny Point "Deus Ex Machina" method is Destiny, Fate & the will of the Force acting in the scene and has nothing to do with your character's personal actions, so in the event that a character falls off a cliff, you attempt to catch them with Move, roll all dark side points & opt to not use the power but flip a Destiny to save them, I'd give the character conflict, as they still made that choice not to save someone when they could. The Destiny point wasn't the character's actions in this scenario, so they still chose to let someone die, it was only by the will of the Force that the person survived.

And that is where we disagree. If any player I was GMing was in that situation and made the call not to give in and use Dark Side points, I would not penalize him so. They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend. There is never a situation where a character must earn conflict no matter what his choice. To force that kind of situation on a player is just poor GMing.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is where we disagree. If any player I was GMing was in that situation and made the call not to give in and use Dark Side points, I would not penalize him so. They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend.

And that's where your opinion differs from the people who made this system.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is where we disagree. If any player I was GMing was in that situation and made the call not to give in and use Dark Side points, I would not penalize him so. They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend.

Once again, we come to a point where it's about your way of doing things and the way you speak that denotes you believe it to be the "only way" of running a game.

I can understand if it is your personal idea that letting someone die isn't worthy of Conflict. I certainly don't agree and have stated as such.

However, I do not speak as if my way of doing things is the "only way" and I think that is why so many people disagree with you in most cases. It's not what's being said so much as how you're saying it.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend.

That's nice of you, Mr. GM, not to penalise a person whose friend just died in a horrible accident that could have totally been avoidable.

The argument/discussion y'all are having is about the nature of CHOICE. The force, like any religion, has ideals, as depicted by the various sects (Jedi, Sith, Adepts, Witches, etc.) and they can only be RELATIVELY assessed based on the individual's belief. A Sith who shows weakness is considered weak. A Jedi who shows mercy is considered benevolent. Given the choice is relative to their point of view, it is arbitrary to the system if they used the dark side or the light side to achieve something - it's the intent against their character's motivation that is most important.

Addendum: Star Wars actually reveals the inherent limitation of religion when things are only viewed from one side . That is the real purpose of the battle between the light and the dark - the battle is in people to see both and understand them, without judgement and still act appropriately.

10 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Once again, we come to a point where it's about your way of doing things and the way you speak that denotes you believe it to be the "only way" of running a game.

I can understand if it is your personal idea that letting someone die isn't worthy of Conflict. I certainly don't agree and have stated as such.

However, I do not speak as if my way of doing things is the "only way" and I think that is why so many people disagree with you in most cases. It's not what's being said so much as how you're saying it.

This is the important thing, I think. Regardless of where I stand on the dilemma, I think it is a perfectly valid decision for a character to make.

What I and everyone else are saying you're wrong about, Tramp, is where you think one side of the dilemma is so "right" that it awards no Conflict. You can choose however you like, but Conflict is unavoidable, and if you're going to throw your toys out of the pram the first time Korath takes Conflict, you should just drop the system and go back to d6.

I firmly believe that if Tramp started with a character under this system rather than his 1,800XP+ Mary Sue Uber-Jedi Snowflake, he might understand how things really work, but I doubt he would ever do that.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, the specific scenarios being suggested that will force a player to have to use DSPs.

Maybe try not being so rigid. This game system is not meant to be played that way. Also in using darkside pips is not using the darkside. It is not being perfectly calm in your use of the force. Which is ok. Stop trying to play a robot.

What I am seeing is another area where you don't get how the system works. You think the dark pips on b force die are the dark side. This is not accurate. And the devs have said so. You are trying to ram this system into being like the previous editions. It is not such and shouldn't be played that way.

10 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

I firmly believe that if Tramp started with a character under this system rather than his 1,800XP+ Mary Sue Uber-Jedi Snowflake, he might understand how things really work, but I doubt he would ever do that.

You almost make him sound like ErikB.

At least Tramp's taken the time to read the rules, even if his interpretations of such are rather rigid and inflexible, a mindset that in my own experiences tends to show up most often in players that cut their RPG teeth on either the 3.X/d20 system or (gods forbid) Palladium.

3 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

You almost make him sound like ErikB.

At least Tramp's taken the time to read the rules, even if his interpretations of such are rather rigid and inflexible, a mindset that in my own experiences tends to show up most often in players that cut their RPG teeth on either the 3.X/d20 system or (gods forbid) Palladium.

There was supposed to be an image here...

But this will have to do.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is where we disagree. If any player I was GMing was in that situation and made the call not to give in and use Dark Side points, I would not penalize him so. They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend. There is never a situation where a character must earn conflict no matter what his choice. To force that kind of situation on a player is just poor GMing.

Why do you keep referring to conflict points as a punishment? You claim to have read the core rules backwards and forwards, but one of the biggest things it goes into is that conflict points are "awarded" to players not punishments.

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is where we disagree. If any player I was GMing was in that situation and made the call not to give in and use Dark Side points, I would not penalize him so. They didn't choose to let the person die, they chose not to give in to the Dark Side, but weren't strong enough in the Force to save their friend. There is never a situation where a character must earn conflict no matter what his choice. To force that kind of situation on a player is just poor GMing.

Those "impossible" (to use your word) are what make RPGs far more interesting than other forms of entertainment. Having to make those hard choices is where roleplaying is at its best.

Village on fire and you only have time to save 1 person from the burning buildings: do you choose your apprentice, your brother or the village leader? Trying to put out the fires will only save the structures and not the people inside.

Not choosing the village leader means it will never be rebuilt, not choosing your brother will cause problems between you and the rest of your family, and Not choosing your apprentice means his sercet knowledge is lost.

Any choice will earn conflict for not doing the others. Conflict is not the punishment for choosing the dark side option, it is a consequence of your actions. Choices are far more interesting when they are not black and white, light side and dark side.

To make roleplaying choices based on an in game mechanic is not roleplaying, you are are meta gaming, and this is not the system for meta gaming.

5 minutes ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Those "impossible" (to use your word) are what make RPGs far more interesting than other forms of entertainment. Having to make those hard choices is where roleplaying is at its best.

Village on fire and you only have time to save 1 person from the burning buildings: do you choose your apprentice, your brother or the village leader? Trying to put out the fires will only save the structures and not the people inside.

Not choosing the village leader means it will never be rebuilt, not choosing your brother will cause problems between you and the rest of your family, and Not choosing your apprentice means his sercet knowledge is lost.

Any choice will earn conflict for not doing the others. Conflict is not the punishment for choosing the dark side option, it is a consequence of your actions. Choices are far more interesting when they are not black and white, light side and dark side.

To make roleplaying choices based on an in game mechanic is not roleplaying, you are are meta gaming, and this is not the system for meta gaming.

Exactly.

One of the great and fun aspects of playing a Light-Side Paragon is facing those challenges. My Nautolan Guardian is confronted with such choices all the time, and they're probably the most rewarding moments during sessions.

1 hour ago, Noahjam325 said:

Why do you keep referring to conflict points as a punishment? You claim to have read the core rules backwards and forwards, but one of the biggest things it goes into is that conflict points are "awarded" to players not punishments.

It's "awarded" for giving in to the temptation to do wrong, for giving in to your emotional weaknesses, for using the Dark Side when activating Force powers. It's a consequence that can lead to the Dark Side. It's not a "boon" unless you're actually trying to turn your character to a Dark Side character. For anyone who seeks the Light, it is indeed a "punishment".

1 hour ago, killerbeardhawk said:

Those "impossible" (to use your word) are what make RPGs far more interesting than other forms of entertainment. Having to make those hard choices is where roleplaying is at its best.

Village on fire and you only have time to save 1 person from the burning buildings: do you choose your apprentice, your brother or the village leader? Trying to put out the fires will only save the structures and not the people inside.

Not choosing the village leader means it will never be rebuilt, not choosing your brother will cause problems between you and the rest of your family, and Not choosing your apprentice means his sercet knowledge is lost.

Any choice will earn conflict for not doing the others. Conflict is not the punishment for choosing the dark side option, it is a consequence of your actions. Choices are far more interesting when they are not black and white, light side and dark side.

To make roleplaying choices based on an in game mechanic is not roleplaying, you are are meta gaming, and this is not the system for meta gaming.

In a scenario like that the character would not gain any conflict. That is because he did go to save people. Whether or not he could save everyone is not the issue. He acted when he needed to, and didn't give in to the Dark Side to do it either. That is how the Force looks at things. The Force is pretty black and white, even if society isn't.

7 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

You almost make him sound like ErikB.

At least Tramp's taken the time to read the rules, even if his interpretations of such are rather rigid and inflexible, a mindset that in my own experiences tends to show up most often in players that cut their RPG teeth on either the 3.X/d20 system or (gods forbid) Palladium.

Actually, I cut my teeth on the old First edition D&D, Second ed AD&D, R Talsorian Games Interlock system ( Cyperpunk 2020 , Mekton , etc), and WEG SW games. As I said before, I've been gaming for well over 30 years.

17 hours ago, Daeglan said:

What I am seeing is another area where you don't get how the system works. You think the dark pips on b force die are the dark side. This is not accurate. And the devs have said so. You are trying to ram this system into being like the previous editions. It is not such and shouldn't be played that way.

Yes, it is accurate according to the book itself. On page 280, for instance it says,

Quote

He then rolls the dice. Every Light Side (white Pip) result generates one Force Point the character may spend to fuel the power's abilities. Every Dark Side (black pip) result generates no Force points and is discarded.

However, the Dark Side of the Force is always offering easy power, tempting a Force user to give in and accept its aid. A Force user may use one or more Dark Side pips to generate one additional Force Point each-in addition to those generated by the Light Side. The consequences that come with this choice can be dire, and can gravely affect the individual who gives in to this temptation.

So, based upon this passage alone it is clear that yes, the black pips are Dark Side Force Points , and using them is giving in to the temptations of the Dark Side, as per RAW. And, also based upon that reading, any character who does not give in to that temptation, regardless of any other consequences of that, should never get Conflict as a result.

In the scenario of a person trying to save a friend from falling, and rolls nothing by Dark Side results, by RAW, if he does not give in to the temptation to use the Dark Side, you have this result in the narrative:

Quote

You see your companion begin to fall and quickly reach out with the Force, calmly but determined, but try as you might, you just couldn't stop his fall. The Force simply was not with you.

And in this scenario, I would spend a Destiny Point to instead introduce a small ledge a few meters down upon which the falling friend could land. And, would fall under the Common Sense use since both cliffs and many buildings do have such ledges or balconies which could potentially save a falling person.

In scenario two where you do give in:

Quote

You see your friend fall, and you scream out in fear and horror, reaching out, that terror manifests as power, snatching him from the jaws of death, but afterwards, you can feel the darkness that took hold in your moment of weakness. Earn one Conflict.

By RAW, Dark Side pips are discarded as matter of course unless you specifically give in to the temptation to use them, and therefore should never be penalized with Conflict for not giving in to that temptation. There should never be a situation where the character will always get Conflict no matter what choice they make. And, as far as the "Knowing inaction" Conflict result, you might want to go and reread that on the chart on page 324. The Knowing inaction result only covers a character knowingly allowing another PC or NPC to commit evil. It does not cover a character failing to catch a falling person, for lack of Light Side Force points or any such thing. To quote:

Quote

Knowing Inaction: The PC knows that an NPC or other PC will do something particularly bad (an action that would be worth 5+ Conflict points) and chooses to not intervene.

There is nothing in there about not saving someone from falling, or other accidental injuries. And even the RAW penalty for knowing inaction is only one Conflict.

Regardless, a character should never be in a situation where no matter what choice he makes he gets Conflict. There must always be a choice that does not result in Conflict. That's the whole point of the Morality system, to allow the players to choose between the Light and the Dark, between good and evil; to test their morality, their emotional strengths and weaknesses, and choose whether they'll stand firm with their strength or give in to their weakness resulting in Conflict. To stand firm to the Light is not a weakness. Giving in the the Dark for easy power is.

Does best Mr. Plinkett impression:

Okay okay, people stop shouting. You're hurting my freaking ears! Perhaps we should all leave Tramp alone -- he's a nice guy -- and he buys me tacos on thursdays...mmm tacos. Let's get back to the topic at hand..?

Throwing people at people with the Force thingy is bad. Goodies should not do that because, you know, (Channels EpV Yoda) "The Force should be used for knowledge and defense, never attack..." (returns to the prime material plane),

And Baddies, well they don't give a horses a$$ who they harm (unless it's your girlfriend, right Anakin! ). I expect they should throw you into a wall or other people because they're bad dudes!

end Plinketto...

The mechanics let you do stuff, but it's your character who decides if it's something they should do. Does this topic need more discussion than that?

Again your opinion of how the system should work differs from those that created it. Sure your system works, but it upsets the Apple cart so to speak when balance comes into it.

A dark side Force User has no qualms using the light side as required to further their gains, same for those who choose to be in the middle. But if a Light Side character doesn't know when to allow themselves to use their emotions then they will be sitting in their ivory tower unable to see the true nature of the Dark Side. This single situation is the core of the Prequel trilogy. It's the core of those films, the Jedi would not allow themselves to do what needed to be done and thus suffered the consequences.

Yes it's an interesting character, yes it has potential for story telling, yes it can be played that way. But your character concept doesn't protect your character from the reality of life. Where you here telling us about this concept but admitting there would be tough choices based on his moral code we would happily agree. But deciding this character is infallible is just plain boring. That's what PC RPG's are for, that's what board games and novels and movies and fairytales are for.

With 30 years experience you have way more P&P RPG experience than me, yet you sound stuck in the dungeon crawl aspect of the gaming genre. This isn't an adversarial system, this isn't GMvPC gaming, it's a way of telling INTERESTING stories about characters who have to make interesting decisions. That's the core of it. Most people equate interesting with challenging, every option is bad how can I still succeed. Most don't see interesting as just a higher difficulty Skill Check.