I'd say 70% of her downfall was willingly accepting the Dark Side every time a black pip came up. The two things that put her over the edge were:

1- Smashing the eggs of a large creature (think Rancor sized apex predator) that was infringing on the hunting grounds of a group of low-tech natives

2- Blowing up a medical space station full of wounded Imperial soldiers who were to be discharged from the military

Personally, I think the morality / conflict system in FFG does a good job of encapsulating the binary nature of The Force. Star Wars is a space opera with a clear line between what is Good and what is Evil. The Dark Side is always lurking, in the form of black pips, ready to provide assistance in a dire situation.

11 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Unless the GM is making it rain Conflict getting to Morality 25 means they've been making consistently evil choices. One of the biggest complaints about the Morality system has been how easy it is to float to Light Side Paragon. You can regularly take on 1-5 Conflict per session (or whatever interval used before rolling for Morality) and on average you'll stay where you are.

This is true, it is pretty easy to either stay in the middle, or increase by following the DBAD rule.

12 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I love this system but there are a number of instances where the fluff of the game does not match the mechanics. Morality/Conflict is one of them. The F&D core book as well as the Force chapters in the other core books clearly describe using DS pips to fuel Force powers as in some way using or being influenced by "the dark side" and gaining Conflict is also described this way in the F&D core (yes, some devs have also said they don't necessarily look at it that way, that Conflict can be when a character is stressed, anxious or feeling conflicted) but the actual system lets you regularly gain Conflict without dropping in Morality. If you buy up and use dark side portions of certain Force Powers and somewhat regularly do really evil things (like murder or torture, etc) then your Morality will be dropping and it could be fairly quick. But you have to work at it. Your average Jedi can be pretty relaxed - mechanically - about spending DS pips in powering their abilities because they won't suffer for it. For some this is a violation of the setting in that using the DS should lead easily to corruption, etc. These are the people who think Yoda would never ever under any circumstances spend a DS pip. Others - including me - think that the rules in this regard get it about right. It's only "human" to gain Conflict here and there as the DS is always present (and option) and tempting and that it influences you even subtly but you don't really fall to the dark side unless you consciously go there (Yoda in Rebels TV show indicated he and other Jedi were influenced by Fear and other aspects of the dark side in regard to the Clone Wars).

But if the player things they're playing a "good" character and they've hit 25 Morality then it's probably time for a GM/Player discussion about that.

Also, the Order 66 podcast had an entire episode with Sam Stewart about Grey Jedi in the game. (Episode 72: Gray Matters)

Well I remember way back in the early days of the game line, Sam Stewart was on an ep of the O66, and he used Yoda himself in an example about conflict. He said "Look, Yoda stole things, and he lied to Luke. AND he beat R2 with a stick!" Referring to Yoda grabbing stuff out of Luke's supplies on Dagobah, and then lying about his identity (indirectly), and then smacking R2 upside the dome several times, trying to keep his stolen goods.

That would generate a few conflict, so it's expected for people, even as Paragony as Yoda, to have some conflict here and there. Though none of those examples are using Dark Side.

But, to give a different example, from Rebels, there was that episode where Ezra first taps into his beast control abilities, by tapping into the Dark Side, and Kannen kind of freaks out about it. Ezra genuinely looks confused about Kannen's reaction, as if he did something wrong, because he didn't know any better. And Kannen acknowledges this, he had to say something along the lines of "Look, I know you didn't mean to do it, but you have to be careful using the Force, or you can tap into something dangerous."

I think there is room for instinctive use of the Force, due to things like Fear and stuff that aren't automatically going to curse your PC to be a Sith. It's the allure of being able to indulge those impulses, which might not be the best course of action for the situation, instead of finding the better outcome.

But yeah, it's a messy thing.

3 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

This is true, it is pretty easy to either stay in the middle, or increase by following the DBAD rule.

Well I remember way back in the early days of the game line, Sam Stewart was on an ep of the O66, and he used Yoda himself in an example about conflict. He said "Look, Yoda stole things, and he lied to Luke. AND he beat R2 with a stick!" Referring to Yoda grabbing stuff out of Luke's supplies on Dagobah, and then lying about his identity (indirectly), and then smacking R2 upside the dome several times, trying to keep his stolen goods.

That would generate a few conflict, so it's expected for people, even as Paragony as Yoda, to have some conflict here and there. Though none of those examples are using Dark Side.

But, to give a different example, from Rebels, there was that episode where Ezra first taps into his beast control abilities, by tapping into the Dark Side, and Kannen kind of freaks out about it. Ezra genuinely looks confused about Kannen's reaction, as if he did something wrong, because he didn't know any better. And Kannen acknowledges this, he had to say something along the lines of "Look, I know you didn't mean to do it, but you have to be careful using the Force, or you can tap into something dangerous."

I think there is room for instinctive use of the Force, due to things like Fear and stuff that aren't automatically going to curse your PC to be a Sith. It's the allure of being able to indulge those impulses, which might not be the best course of action for the situation, instead of finding the better outcome.

But yeah, it's a messy thing.

I agree.

I think the Morality system takes a lot of player initiative and GM and player working together for it to fully work like this. The Ezra scene could be done in the game by the GM awarding double Conflict (maybe the encounter touched on his Strength/Weakness) or the GM could just give out a big Conflict award for what happened. But to work right the player would have to see this as an interesting part of the characters development and growth and really get into the roleplay aspects of it. I think this the other big complaint I've seen of Morality - unlike Obligation and Duty it's not a great tool for GMs as much as it's a tool for PCs that needs GM support.

1 hour ago, P-Dub663 said:

Grey Jedi are simply individuals who want the power of the Dark Side without having the responsibility of killing a room full of children.

I'm dealing with a dark sider in my current game who "does bad things for good reasons". She hit a morality of 25 and when her eyes went orange and face looked like a melted candle, she didn't understand why she was getting black dice added to her social checks. I informed her that it was due to radiating evil and she insisted that her character was good.

The next game I run won't have any Force Sensitive characters, I can assure you of that. People don't comprehend the binary nature of the Force, nor do they want to accept the consequences for their actions.

I'm sure Walter White did bad things for good reasons, and yet in the end, he was a homicidal, sociopath, drug lord. So you know, the road to heck is paved with good intentions and all that.

9 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I agree.

I think the Morality system takes a lot of player initiative and GM and player working together for it to fully work like this. The Ezra scene could be done in the game by the GM awarding double Conflict (maybe the encounter touched on his Strength/Weakness) or the GM could just give out a big Conflict award for what happened. But to work right the player would have to see this as an interesting part of the characters development and growth and really get into the roleplay aspects of it. I think this the other big complaint I've seen of Morality - unlike Obligation and Duty it's not a great tool for GMs as much as it's a tool for PCs that needs GM support.

Eh, as someone who GM'd a F&D game, I disagree that Morality isn't a good system tool for the GM. But that's me personally. *shrugs* I have very little problem with finding ways to take tiny story elements and fleshing them out into full plot arcs, or finding ways to work them into a game in an interesting way, etc. That kind of stuff, I have zero issue with, my weakness is on the mechanics side, which is why i love this system, because I can just toss a middle finger to the mechanics for the most part, and just arbitrate on the spot without any real issue.

I think the issue with Morality, in comparison to Duty/Obligation, is it requires buy-in from the player as well, which can be difficult. There is a prevailing mindset with most gamers, that having negative things happen to your character, is a failure. The whole point of Morality, and the Light/Dark duality in Star Wars in general, is about that conflict, that struggle to be a good person, or give in to your baser desires and become bad.

A lot of players, see getting Conflict as a punishment for doing a bad thing, when it should really be seen as an opportunity for character growth. And not every player wants to explore that kind of gaming experience. Which, does come into conflict (haha! again with the thread puns!) with the spirit of the F&D stuff.

6 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Eh, as someone who GM'd a F&D game, I disagree that Morality isn't a good system tool for the GM. But that's me personally. *shrugs* I have very little problem with finding ways to take tiny story elements and fleshing them out into full plot arcs, or finding ways to work them into a game in an interesting way, etc. That kind of stuff, I have zero issue with, my weakness is on the mechanics side, which is why i love this system, because I can just toss a middle finger to the mechanics for the most part, and just arbitrate on the spot without any real issue.

I think the issue with Morality, in comparison to Duty/Obligation, is it requires buy-in from the player as well, which can be difficult. There is a prevailing mindset with most gamers, that having negative things happen to your character, is a failure. The whole point of Morality, and the Light/Dark duality in Star Wars in general, is about that conflict, that struggle to be a good person, or give in to your baser desires and become bad.

A lot of players, see getting Conflict as a punishment for doing a bad thing, when it should really be seen as an opportunity for character growth. And not every player wants to explore that kind of gaming experience. Which, does come into conflict (haha! again with the thread puns!) with the spirit of the F&D stuff.

I agree about seeing Conflict as story development rather than punishment.

As for how good a tool Morality is for the GM...I guess you're a better GM than me =)

My hang up is that a lot of it is so internal to the PC. I can use some scenarios where the PCs Strength/Weakness comes to the foreground but it seems hard to do often (maybe it's not meant to) but even then the PC has to go with it. In my last game session a PCs Morality of Justice/Cruelty came into play and it was a short interesting moment in the story but these sorts of things are rare (and even in this scenario I had the crutch of using a Force spirit to "tempt" the PC internally with their Strength/Weakness). I also feel it's ham-fisted when I point out that a PCs Strength/Weakness are in play. But I'm glad you're able to get a lot out of it.

My preferred philosophy of the Force is basically the same as Jolee Bindo and the reformed Revan: there is a real difference between the light and dark sides, and the dark side is evil and unsafe, but the Jedi ban on attachment and positive emotions rests on a misunderstanding of the light side of the Force.

The idea that some balance must be maintained between the light and dark sides seems absurd to me. The light side is balance, the dark side is imbalance.

2 hours ago, P-Dub663 said:

Grey Jedi are simply individuals who want the power of the Dark Side without having the responsibility of killing a room full of children.

I'm dealing with a dark sider in my current game who "does bad things for good reasons". She hit a morality of 25 and when her eyes went orange and face looked like a melted candle, she didn't understand why she was getting black dice added to her social checks. I informed her that it was due to radiating evil and she insisted that her character was good.

The next game I run won't have any Force Sensitive characters, I can assure you of that. People don't comprehend the binary nature of the Force, nor do they want to accept the consequences for their actions.

Moral Relativism

The players want to use convenient morality for the character, but because there is an actual Force that knows good and evil they can't get away with that, even if the numbers in the game through the morality system are not linear and consistent. As someone said above the Force actually can tell the difference.

The player who wants to have the powers of a Jedi but doesn't want to pay for them is basically just trying to skirt the morality rules for their convenience, it has nothing to do with the Force.

I specifically created an account to reply to this topic after spending 5 years lurking. I am not sure if that helps in establishing credibility, but here is my perspective:

To be a Jedi is to adopt a specific dogma. It is a defining philosophy rooted in millennia of practice. Once you reject the dogma of the philosophy, you are no longer a Jedi. In the past, certain authors have utilized the term Dark or Grey with Jedi, but it is inappropriate and borne out of ingnorance. Being a Jedi is like being Catholic, you can't pick and choose your tenets, you have to accept the entire dogma to be a Jedi. That is why Ahsoka is not a Jedi. She is still good, and if we statted her out, her Morality would likely fall in the lightside paragon range, but she is not a Jedi anymore.

As a community, I believe that it behooves us to separate the terms Jedi and Sith from Light and Dark. The former are merely two philosophies of the latter. And the terms are not interchangeable in any meaningful sense.

56 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I agree about seeing Conflict as story development rather than punishment.

As for how good a tool Morality is for the GM...I guess you're a better GM than me =)

Nah, I wouldn't say I'm a better GM than anyone, just pointing out the aspects of creative storytelling that I know I'm good at.

59 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

My hang up is that a lot of it is so internal to the PC. I can use some scenarios where the PCs Strength/Weakness comes to the foreground but it seems hard to do often (maybe it's not meant to) but even then the PC has to go with it. In my last game session a PCs Morality of Justice/Cruelty came into play and it was a short interesting moment in the story but these sorts of things are rare (and even in this scenario I had the crutch of using a Force spirit to "tempt" the PC internally with their Strength/Weakness). I also feel it's ham-fisted when I point out that a PCs Strength/Weakness are in play. But I'm glad you're able to get a lot out of it.

Oh I agree it's a bit tricky in that it does require significant buy-in from the player to truly utilize it. That's what I was saying earlier, that some players just don't like that kind of stuff. The whole "acting" part of ROLEplaying. They'd rather ROLLplay instead, and that does make it harder to use, since so much of it isn't under the GM's control. I just think if you have a frank talk with your players about the Morality, and how, as Force characters, a big part of their story is based around that struggle with good vs evil. And that you want to explore that, which means sometimes the PC needs to do things that aren't "good" for them, but are fitting for the scene. And that the Conflict isn't a "punishment" but it's simply a reflection of the results of that situation. Which again, is very hard for some players to swallow.

1 hour ago, Quercus bicolor said:

Being a Jedi is like being Catholic, you can't pick and choose your tenets, you have to accept the entire dogma to be a Jedi.

Except that Catholic's all around the world pick and choose stuff they believe in all the time. There are tons of debates where people call them out on excepting Point 1, but not Point 2, because it clashes with their modern sense of morality. In fact that's not even exclusive to Catholics, pretty much every religion does this, as the culture morality evolves beyond that of the author's of their religious book.

Not trying to derail into a RL religious debate, but that's not a very good example I think.

24 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Except that Catholic's all around the world pick and choose stuff they believe in all the time. There are tons of debates where people call them out on excepting Point 1, but not Point 2, because it clashes with their modern sense of morality. In fact that's not even exclusive to Catholics, pretty much every religion does this, as the culture morality evolves beyond that of the author's of their religious book.

Not trying to derail into a RL religious debate, but that's not a very good example I think.

I dunno, I think you're both right!

There is a lot of debate within the Catholic church over a whole host of issues and there's even different religious orders within the church that take different views on things. But they are all part of the official organization of the Catholic church. The church does excommunicate people but those are for serious infractions of a known set of core principles. You aren't excommunicated for not strictly adhering to or agreeing with all of the "dogma" (side point: dogma is technically "received wisdom" but seems to have a negative connotation these days).

Qui-gon was a Master in good standing even though he sometimes annoyed some on the Jedi High Council. He was respected even though perhaps he didn't rise as high in the organization as he might if he was more strict in following the Jedi Code (assuming Padawan Obi-wan knew what he was talking about).

Anakin disobeyed important orders but there wasn't really a threat of being expelled from the Order until Anakin wanted to abandon his duty and mission to go back for Padme (Attack of the Clones).

Even Dooku, who left the Order, was thought well of (before the Clone Wars) as Mace Windu comments that he couldn't be behind Padme's assassin because he was once a Jedi. And only very few Jedi have ever left the Order which would indicate to me that they do allow more disagreement than they get credit for (though this assumption may not be well founded because settings like this are perfectly coherent...).

A Grey Jedi isn't a Jedi. It's just not possible.

A Jedi follows the Jedi way of life. They follow a Code, the live a certain lifestyle, they go with the flow of the Force and let the Force guide their actions and their future. A Jedi doesn't willingly give into the Dark Side, and if they do, they take steps to correct that and prevent it from happening again. A Jedi doesn't agree with what the Dark Side stands for.

Once you have a Jedi going 'Hey, I'm sure I can use Force Lightning to do good!' or 'The Jedi Order would be better if we used both sides!!' then they aren't a Jedi anymore. They stopped following that Code, they stopped living that lifestyle. They no longer believe in what a Jedi stands for. They are just--lost. On their own.

I saw a description of the Force as a flowing river. You stand in the river and you either go with the currents, letting the water take you to a new destination, or you fight against it. There is no passive, there is no middle ground, either you work with it, or against it.

And let me clear something up! Jedi aren't emotionless. Jedi care, Jedi laugh, Jedi cry, Jedi love. People seem to believe love for a Jedi would equal a romantic love, but a Jedi is willing to give up their lives for people who may not even think they exist. They are willing to give up unlimited power to humble themselves and work for the betterment of others. They are willing to sacrifice everything to help those who, in the grand scheme of things, below them. But a Jedi doesn't think like this. That is a love stronger than most romantic ones.

A Jedi can be fun and interesting without this whole 'gotta be in the middle grey jedi' deal. Jedi aren't normal people like us, we can't relate to them all the time, but Jedi are normal people like us because they feel things. They feel angry and upset and hurt and scared and lost, but they feel that with so much more intensity than we ever could. And instead of lashing out, they stay calm, they stay stronger than the Dark Side that would seek to tear them apart.

It's really fun to play a Jedi, or someone striving to be one, following the way of the Jedi that are now gone. You don't need to use the Dark Side to play a character that kicks butt!

Its equally fun playing not a Jedi.

Grey Jedi aren't people who run around blowing stuff up with Force Lightning for good.

They are people who see the Jedi Code as more Guidelines then strict rules that must be obeyed.

6 hours ago, Lanuria said:

And let me clear something up! Jedi aren't emotionless.

First line of the Jedi code - There is no emotion, there is peace. While individuals may display emotions, the goal of the Jedi order is to be emotionless. Again, it is the first line of their code. Any argument for semantics is to ignore that all species and all languages need to understand the code intimately so it needs to be literal and unambiguous.

4 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

First line of the Jedi code - There is no emotion, there is peace. While individuals may display emotions, the goal of the Jedi order is to be emotionless. Again, it is the first line of their code. Any argument for semantics is to ignore that all species and all languages need to understand the code intimately so it needs to be literal and unambiguous.

The dead show no emotion and are thought to be at peace. Maybe the goal of the Jedi really was to die out?

6 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

First line of the Jedi code - There is no emotion, there is peace. While individuals may display emotions, the goal of the Jedi order is to be emotionless. Again, it is the first line of their code. Any argument for semantics is to ignore that all species and all languages need to understand the code intimately so it needs to be literal and unambiguous.

The last line of the code always says there is no death, there is the force, yet Jedi die all the time.

55 minutes ago, Lanuria said:

The last line of the code always says there is no death, there is the force, yet Jedi die all the time.

" According to the Jedi tradition, death was a part of life, and it meant becoming one with the Force. "

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_ghost

1 minute ago, DarkHorse said:

" According to the Jedi tradition, death was a part of life, and it meant becoming one with the Force. "

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_ghost

You just said the code needed to be literal to be understood. If we took the last line of the code to be literal, someone may think that Jedi don't die.

Jedi have emotions. We see Obi-Wan crying Qui-Gon, we see Yoda laughing and having fun, we see Jedi being curious! A Jedi can't stand for justice and helping people if they don't feel compassion and love for others.

@Quercus bicolor Forestry?

7 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

First line of the Jedi code - There is no emotion, there is peace. While individuals may display emotions, the goal of the Jedi order is to be emotionless. Again, it is the first line of their code. Any argument for semantics is to ignore that all species and all languages need to understand the code intimately so it needs to be literal and unambiguous.

But it's biologically impossible for living beings to be without emotion. Despite the colorful wording with it's "deepening" meaning, I think it's more to imply that you don't let your emotions rule your judgement. That you take time to think about your actions before doing them, to make sure you aren't acting rashly, impulsively. To try and imply that being a Jedi somehow purges you of emotions is just silly. That's not how organics work.

Plus, that's not how the Paragon Jedi we see even act? We see Yoda cracking jokes, and cackling like a mad little muppet all the time. We see Obi-Wan making jokes with Anakin, and Qui-Gon showing annoyance with the Council when they deny Anakin as his Padawan. We see Yoda show annoyance at Obi-Wan's ghost, and we hear straight from Yoda that they reacted out of fear, when they agreed to fight in the Clone War. You know, they let their emotions guide their actions, against the first tenant of the Code, almost like it's there to warn people not to do that, because it can lead to mistakes.

So no, a "true" Jedi isn't an emotionless Vulcan, heck even VULCANS aren't emotionless Vulcans, they just leash their emotions under logic, but it's just a restraint.

21 hours ago, P-Dub663 said:

She hit a morality of 25 and when her eyes went orange and face looked like a melted candle,

Umm, neither this system specifically nor the setting canon generally make the assumption that the dark side is also an ugly stick. That was a mistaken idea from the early days.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

But it's biologically impossible for living beings to be without emotion. Despite the colorful wording with it's "deepening" meaning, I think it's more to imply that you don't let your emotions rule your judgement.

Isn't that "there is no X, only Y" format essentially a corruption (or at least fundamentalising) of the original ideas anyway?

7 minutes ago, Garran said:

Isn't that "there is no X, only Y" format essentially a corruption (or at least fundamentalising) of the original ideas anyway?

I honestly don't know. I'm not big enough of a Star Wars fan to dive into the Legacy stuff that much. I personally didn't find much of the Legacy material to be that compelling when I was reading it back in the 90's, either comic books or novels, so it basically soured me on all of the published fan fiction that was out there.

So I really don't know where the Jedi Code came from, if it was something Lucas actually did, or somebody else came up with in the 30+ years of stuff and basically nobody said "No". *shrugs*

I personally don't have a problem with the idea of a code, or creed, or the idea of somebody writing down a basic concept of what they believe. I mean, every religion does that. My only issue was with the idea that it was literal, and it meant that Jedi don't have any emotions, which is something someone specifically said in this thread.

My issue was simply with the somewhat common opinion (by at least some of the SW fanbase), that the Code basically means that "true" Jedi are essentially Vulcans with magic powers and laser swords. I was simply pointing out the flaws in that, namely that it's simply impossible for living beings to be without emotion. And even the most archetypical species, the Vulcans, aren't devoid of emotions. They are in fact, SUPER emotional, more so than humanity even. They just have trained themselves to contain them, for fear of becoming ravening beasts. I think the two concepts have sort of bled into each other. To me, I think the actual meaning behind "There is no emotion, only peace" is basically a pretty way of saying "Don't act out of emotional reaction to events. Don't panic and react to stimuli, don't rage and react to anger, etc. Calm yourself, look at the moment rationally, and try and see the best course of action with the least amount of harm for all involved." It doesn't mean "Never laugh at a comedy you watch." or " Never cry when you see Bambi's mom die."

That's just silly, because again, we see all of the poster children for Paragony Jedi, having emotions. They laugh, they get angry, they get frustrated, etc. But they don't let those emotions (usually), guide their actions. Because that's how the Dark Side gets a hold on you. And the times when they do let their emotions guide their actions, usually things go badly for them and those around them.

I re-watched the trailer for The Last Jedi and Rey references, "The Balance." Now a lot of stuff goes into trailers that never hits the big screen, but this was worrisome to me. Is the balance what makes Rey into a Mary Sue? Is that why she can do all that stuff with no training?

Someone posted on here that it's fun to be a Force user and not have to follow those Jedi rules. Someone else was trying to make the case that Dark side use does not affect your appearance.

Have you even seen Star Wars?

It's not about if you can make Gray Jedi, but should you. I think this is the fantasy of the boss-less man. The reaction of the mind to living in a reality where there is cause and effect attempting to find a pleasing fantasy in the idea of being able to simple ascend without paying for it. Another physics free lunch when Star Wars already has plenty.

Think about what you are advocating n the gray jedi, because if you love Star Wars, you are saying it's ok to go ahead and toss all the duality that forms the basis of the central conflict of the setting. The Emperor is a **** because of the dark side, Vader is a **** because of the dark side, and all of those magically dark events of the far past (specified or myth) happened because there is a dark side.

If you want to act like a **** and still think you are a hero, you are wrong. The Force used to know this, but maybe it's gone stupid.