Before I started playing this game I converted RuneQuest 6 (Mythras now) for Star Wars use and created a bunch of mechanics for how to handle things. I was a bit surprised at the Morality system in this game because while I liked the random aspect, it can lead to Accidental Paragons and Frustrated would-be Sith Lords. In my version I made it so that the equivalent of Morality had a negative scale (lets call it Dark Side) that you had to Purposely try to move back up above 0 in the positive, but tended to stay at zero if you were not doing well with the Dark Side thing. Once characters were in the negative scale and had fallen to the Dark Side, they advanced on their new Dark Side track in order to unlock certain abilities that were more sorcerous in nature. The gains were better at first than the Light Side but they equaled out in the end.

The Dark Siders would lose points on their scale for two main things: displaying weakness, or being subservient. Notice that both of those could actually be Moral things or they could simply be antithetical to the Dark Side depending on how they were described. This would not push them toward the light so much as it would keep them at low numbers on their scale. I understand that this game is designed to play heroes, and I applaud that, but I find that the Morality system has kind of a crazy mechanic because it has accidental good, which I find frustrating.

I'm no fan of evil play, but it seems to me If it's gonna be there then it should be defined in a way that makes sense. Dark Siders are trying to progress as well, not just avoid being good and it's inexorable pull toward the light, if anything it seems like it would be the opposite.

Seems to me like 0 Morality should have been the Dark Side, and negative morality (Probably best called Dark Side I guess) is advancing in the Dark Side direction. At 0 Morality (Dark Side) or lower the character can spend Dark Force points no problem but can only flop a Light Side for a power if they have Destiny to spend, and are at a Dark Side score higher than 0 (-1, -2, etc.) They accrue conflict, and roll to see if they lose Dark Side points for tapping the light side of the Force, indicating meditating on patience and dispassion or whatever. The conflict roll does not result in the character gaining Dark side points, only in not losing them. This assumes that there is an actual Duality to the Force and that the two flavors of it don't mix. An equal amount of dark side effectively cancelling out light side power of that value because the two power types require opposed methods to draw the power (can't be calm and raging at the same time, can't be selfish and selfless at the same time, can't be concentrating on being evil and being good all at once, no square circles or any other such nonsense).

Unlike Morality which has to ascend if it doesn't descend, Dark Side was only awarded for seeking power and moving toward power. Points were awarded based on instances of evil actions that were significant. They could kill people all session but the notable things were what mattered such as killing a rival, defeating a challenging foe, avoiding being killed by the master, or sneaking around and planning to kill your master. So in this way the Dark side character is really trying to advance but is also worried about Weakness or Subservience because they lower his power. Poke some holes in this for me if you don't mind. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

We do see Kylo Ren having temper tantrums for no good reason other than to prevent going light side...

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I'm no fan of evil play, but it seems to me If it's gonna be there then it should be defined in a way that makes sense. Dark Siders are trying to progress as well, not just avoid being good and it's inexorable pull toward the light, if anything it seems like it would be the opposite.

I'm no fan of the game's Morality system, but I think your portrayal of dark spiders completely misses the point. It's ironic that probably the two most disciplined characters in the whole canon were Dooku and Palpatine. So your comments like "can't be calm and raging" are directly defied by the media, especially by TCW. Dooku is always meditating.

A person falls to the dark side because of the rationalizations they make about what actions they take, especially when those actions are driven by negative emotions. Just MHO, you can shift the scale all you like, but it's still a scale, with all the flaws a scale implies...such as that you can do numerous micro-good things and somehow make it balance with murder.

I've dispensed with the whole thing and instead use a mechanic like critical hits. If you want to get rid of a moral crit, you have to redeem yourself through story actions.

4 minutes ago, whafrog said:

but I think your portrayal of dark spiders completely misses the point

I was going to add to the conversation, but instead I'll just say that staying calm and meditative around dark spiders is pretty hard for most people.

LOL, typing on the iPad isn't always exact

I do like the idea of Moral Crits. That is cool

It's interesting to me that so many people have such a hard time with a distinct duality and the implications of that. When we are dealing with the Force aren't we basically dealing with Good and Bad space magic? Why does this have to conform with what is comfortable psychologically for humans? I mean, isn't this supposed to be Fantasy? Does it all have to be like the morality you encounter at Starbucks vs. the morality of something like The Lord of the Rings?

How can you be calm and furious at the same time? That is a contradiction. Dooku and Palpatine could have been reserved in their behavior, but inside could be seething. Just because they are not frothing at the mouth doesn't mean they are not full of a slow burning and corrosive hatred. Because it's Magic, it can be polarized where human beings like to deny this notion. Most people do not function in the exacts of morality simply because they don't examine the issue philosophically, but instead view it from the prism of their own actions from an egocentric view. Most people seem to adopt an "I did this so it must be ok" attitude rather than being able to look at even a small behavior as essentially being wrong but causing no immediate and visible harm. People see this as being right because they like it, rather than just admitting that things are actually wrong. You may still do them, but they're wrong because of the nature of the act, not how comfortable you were doing it or how much you justify it as "normal."

But actual Light Side/Dark Side character really shouldn't be about states of mind in my opinion, except in how you approach the two sides of the Force in order to tap into it. For actual movement along the poles I think it is more about objective behavior. If you kill the kids, but feel like you did it for a good reason, that doesn't make it ok. Your intentions shouldn't make you immune to the effects of your actions. If you feel bad about it, then you will have conflict (a chance that you slide toward Good), but your action itself is bad, and would result in Dark Side points being awarded. I feel that it should be purposeful for you to move back into Good rather than sliding there on accident. The idea of bad guys having to avoid accidentally turning into good guys isn't something that I think should apply as a rule. It is easier to destroy than to build and all that.

So to summarize, I think that Intention is about what direction you mean to take, whereas Action moves you in either direction on the Morality/Dark Side number line. This way you know where they want to go by the way the character thinks and talks, but you have actual movement from their actions. Someone who puts a plan into action is more evil than someone who simply wants to do evil things but doesn't do anything. I think this is what people don't like, that evil ideas don't supersede evil actions as far as the value of evil. If your thoughts are as potent, or more, than your actions, then it's a whole different dynamic, and then in that case you really are what you think, and your identity in the Force is not really determined by you, but by your nature. That would really be a blow to the idea of personal choice though, and for me that idea is too far in the direction of stock characters are not capable of large swings in their destiny. If your thinking defines you more than what you do, then you are what you are, and you can't really blame (or admire) anyone for what stance they have taken on the moral fence. They would just be largely static pieces.

Darth Vader isn't redeemed until he throws Palpatine down the well. Thinking about it but not doing it wasn't worth anything, it was only when he acted in a good way that he redeemed himself.

13 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

It's interesting to me that so many people have such a hard time with a distinct duality and the implications of that. When we are dealing with the Force aren't we basically dealing with Good and Bad space magic? Why does this have to conform with what is comfortable psychologically for humans? I mean, isn't this supposed to be Fantasy? Does it all have to be like the morality you encounter at Starbucks vs. the morality of something like The Lord of the Rings?

I agree with you, but I think most don't. They either don't agree with, don't perceive, or refuse to acknowledge the idea that Star Wars--as far as the Force goes--works on a binary scale. Good guys and bad guys.

One big issue with this, I think, is that the bad guys are "cool." Darth Vader is by far more popular that Luke Skywalker. Bad guys in fiction, pretty much across the board, are often liked more than good guys. So in RPGs, people want to be cool, but they don't often want to be out-and-out bad guys, so they try to debate and muddy the issue to justify having all the bad guy coolness with all the benefits of being regarded as a good guy. They want all the fun toys without having to pay for them.

This extends to the writers in the EU and canon that have tried to add 'gray' elements in. I think there's a difference between 'introducing complex gray concepts to the story' and 'trying to make my favorite character feel like less of a bad guy so I don't feel bad about liking them,' and many of the lesser-skilled writers fall into the latter category.

--

In regards to the morality system for this game, I think it was designed by individuals that had a specific idea in mind for its application, a specific setting and progression and usage that most don't actually follow, tied to character creation specifically. For better or for worse.

Mostly, I don't think I've seen one person who actually follows the step-by-step process for character creation.

If you follow the process, you pick a background (the provided backgrounds in the books are all pretty simplistic, specific enough to give an idea, broad enough to fit almost anywhere), then you pick an emotional strength/weakness, which informs how the character acts , then you pick species, career/specialization, etc. The end result is a character built around, say, bravery/recklessness, so everything the player chooses going forward will be tied being a brave and/or reckless person, and then the GM will assign conflict according to what the player does. So, if a player wants to be dark side, they may play more reckless, and the GM would award conflict appropriately. Or the other way around.

This also can be applied with obligation and duty going as well.

But nobody actually does any of that, or rarely do. They usually start with a grand character concept that's mostly set, and just pick and choose the pieces they want, rather than build something with the pieces they're given. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, I have no idea. But I do believe that's a contributing factor to the problem.

9 minutes ago, Blackbird888 said:

I agree with you, but I think most don't. They either don't agree with, don't perceive, or refuse to acknowledge the idea that Star Wars--as far as the Force goes--works on a binary scale. Good guys and bad guys.

The Force itself might be binary, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "good guys and bad guys", nor inform how to play a PC. Maybe the OT is a bit more binary wrt character behaviour, but even then it's overly simplistic. Han Solo himself is one big grey area. Luke in E6 skated perilously close to a fall. The PT introduced further shades of grey, casting the entire Jedi order as morally compromised, and TCW expanded on that even more.

Will you lose your Padawan and an entire medical station because the Geonosian arch-Duke is resistant to mind tricks, or will you beat the living crap out of him and get some answers? This is a no-win situation, regardless of how you deal with it, the dark side gets its hooks in. That's part of the drama.

46 minutes ago, whafrog said:

The Force itself might be binary, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "good guys and bad guys", nor inform how to play a PC. Maybe the OT is a bit more binary wrt character behaviour, but even then it's overly simplistic. Han Solo himself is one big grey area. Luke in E6 skated perilously close to a fall. The PT introduced further shades of grey, casting the entire Jedi order as morally compromised, and TCW expanded on that even more.

Will you lose your Padawan and an entire medical station because the Geonosian arch-Duke is resistant to mind tricks, or will you beat the living crap out of him and get some answers? This is a no-win situation, regardless of how you deal with it, the dark side gets its hooks in. That's part of the drama.

The inclusion of drama and moral ambiguity doesn't prove what I said wrong, nor does it imply that a story about heroes and villains cannot have those things. Everybody points to Han Solo, but ultimately he chose to throw his lot in with the good guys, despite his grousing about being a scoundrel; by the time of RotJ, he was pretty much wholly committed. Luke being close to falling to the dark side didn't make him a bad guy, because he ultimately resisted and chose to do good. Elements of gray existing or being added doesn't change what was black or white already.

That's the problem I see: trying to change what is presented as black and white into something gray (or the opposite). The PT showing the Jedi were were not always heroic doesn't change the fact that Emperor was the villain. The Jedi being presented as not all that heroic also didn't mean that Luke training to be one makes his actions less heroic.

I never said any of what you're suggesting.

Nor am I saying what you said I suggested to say instead of saying what you suggested. Probably.

While I did weigh in on my feeling about it, I only included that Duality bit in the OP as a way of defining what moves you in what direction. Psychologically Blackbird and I are correct I think in ascertaining the reason why people are uncomfortable with good and evil as represented by the Force. I will even go so far as to say it's not realistic to have characters that are dominated by one type of behavior or the other, but I also think that people aren't willing to look at Morality from an Objective viewpoint.

You find 5 bucks on the ground. No one is around to claim it. The only people who walked through that area today are travelers. If you pick up that money is it wrong?

Yes, it's wrong because it doesn't belong to you. It doesn't matter how you justify it, it's not your 5 dollars. What if after you leave, the original owner comes by looking for it? Did you not steal it from him? If he never comes by how would you know? Even if you knew that when you take it you are still taking it. You use the money to give to charity, that action is good, but it doesn't erase how you got the money.

Of course most people would pick up the money, but most people will not admit that it is technically wrong to do it.

Most people cannot be bothered to puzzle through something like this for their actions, and I don't blame them because it would have no practical purpose unless you are very religious or something. But in Star Wars the Force knows what you have done, and it doesn't care how you feel about it, it is either something that is attributed to the Light Side of the Force, or the Dark Side of the Force. It may be of such little consequence that it barely moves your status in the Force, but it will move it if it can objectively be classified as right or wrong in the way that the Force sees right and wrong.

Trying to skirt this for the convenience of your sense of right and wrong (or lack thereof) means that the duality and morality of the Force is something you want to discount for the purpose of being able to do what you want without consequences that you don't like. Since the characters live in a universe that actually does have the Force in it, your character's intentions must bow to the physics of the Force just as the Character is affected by gravity/time/etc. in the game.

In engaging in "Gray" things people seem to be applying this test: Do I feel this is bad?

Feelings are associated with the Dark Side I think, so you can see how trying to feel your way through a moral dilemma is probably going to answer the question for you. I felt like killing him, I felt like putting a plan into motion to get innocents killed, I felt like beating the crap out of the Geonosian Arch-Duke.

It now becomes obvious as to why so many people the Jedi are unfathomable. They think rather than feel their way through problems.

Claiming abandoned property, like money on the ground with no one around, is neither stealing nor wrong. A grand accounting of "what ifs" doesn't change that.

In your example of picking up 5 dollars off the ground is stealing, then what is Obi-wan using the Jedi mind trick on storm troopers? Stealing money is bad=evil=dark side but stealing someone's free will is "good" or light? It is called the "Jedi mind trick" after all and if the Jedi order is Light side, how is this reconciled in a duality? Obi-wan is using the Light Side (presumably) to inflict his will on another sentient being and making them accept what he knows is a total lie. Qui-gonn cheats at dice using the Force and he is ok with it since the ends justifies the means in his book. Which side of the Force is he using to cheat Watto? Why does the Force let him cheat if it is a moral arbiter?

I don't think Vader assassinating the Emperor is the direct catalyst of his redemption. If he just killed the Emperor to take his throne or because it was Tuesday, that is the depths of the Dark Side. It is when Vader cannot stand to see his son suffer and he decides to choose his son's life over the power the Emperor is offering, that is when he can be redeemed. Vader gets mortally wounded by the Emperor but it is the sacrifice he is willing to make to save his son, that is what calls him back to the Light despite all the evil he has done in his life. Self-sacrifice to save life is Vader's redemption, not killing.

21 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Claiming abandoned property, like money on the ground with no one around, is neither stealing nor wrong. A grand accounting of "what ifs" doesn't change that.

Kind of thought you might skirt that one with semantics. Ok, let me ask this then, is there anything that you would say is objectively wrong?

10 minutes ago, DarkHorse said:

In your example of picking up 5 dollars off the ground is stealing, then what is Obi-wan using the Jedi mind trick on storm troopers? Stealing money is bad=evil=dark side but stealing someone's free will is "good" or light? It is called the "Jedi mind trick" after all and if the Jedi order is Light side, how is this reconciled in a duality? Obi-wan is using the Light Side (presumably) to inflict his will on another sentient being and making them accept what he knows is a total lie. Qui-gonn cheats at dice using the Force and he is ok with it since the ends justifies the means in his book. Which side of the Force is he using to cheat Watto? Why does the Force let him cheat if it is a moral arbiter?

I don't think Vader assassinating the Emperor is the direct catalyst of his redemption. If he just killed the Emperor to take his throne or because it was Tuesday, that is the depths of the Dark Side. It is when Vader cannot stand to see his son suffer and he decides to choose his son's life over the power the Emperor is offering, that is when he can be redeemed. Vader gets mortally wounded by the Emperor but it is the sacrifice he is willing to make to save his son, that is what calls him back to the Light despite all the evil he has done in his life. Self-sacrifice to save life is Vader's redemption, not killing.

That example wasn't for use in a star wars scenario, that's why I said 5 bucks. It's an illustration of how easily you can do something that is technically wrong. You can pick an apple off a wild tree and that's not wrong. I used that example to try and illustrate a simple moral dilemma. Making excuses as to why it isn't wrong is just arguing the example, so I ditched it.

Qui Gon's actions in that moment would seem to me to be self defense. Qui Gon is acting to counter act Watto's attack on them via monetary means and control of Anakin and his Mother. Many people see Qui Gon as a do what I want jedi, so maybe he is playing with the dark side there, but I would say that an act of self-defense isn't morally wrong. I would say It is one of the few things that is actually null.

So if Vader wouldn't have been hurt killing the Emperor it wouldn't have redeemed him?

Part of the test here is to see if you in your thinking can justify any act with a good enough end, or with the intention you think absolves you of blame. If that's the case then you are a moral relativist and the Force thing will never make sense to you as it's presented. You might as well accept that to you the good and evil thing is a very ill-defined piece of machinery that feels like it is about whim and circumstance.

But if you are someone who can accept that there is a way to classify actions as being wrong or right, then it's simply a matter of assigning those actions to one side of the force or the other. Though I did give one example of an action being tied to its antecedent, and that is self defense, the action being necessitated by a force and that action not being overly preemptive. I still feel that this would be actually not a value of either the dark side or the light side, but it could be argued that self-defense from rational thought (or nature to use the Stoic version) would be light side, while doing so from passion would be dark side.

So many intelligent observations and arguments here. I wonder if I might ask this group what happens when my character goes below zero in her morality score. She is currently at sixteen and has apprenticed herself to a Sith. She was trying to save her planet from Imperial occupation but due to her passionate emotions and impatience, was tricked into subservience to the invading Sith Lord. I play her now as having an addiction as powerful as bacon flavored chocolate to the power and admiration she gets from wielding the dark side force. But what happens if her morality goes below zero?

Thanks. TaiChiSusan

The big problem I've always had with this debate is that it's framed in the terms of Good vs. Evil, and then, with the Force as the ultimate arbiter, it doesn't make sense.

If an action is Evil (capital "E"), and the Force is the judge, and it doesn't like Evil (remember, there was no "Light Side" before The Force Awakens; it was just the Force, and the Dark Side when it was misused), why does it permit those actions in the first place? Why is using the Force for bad even a thing?

The answer is that it's not a Good vs. Evil thing*. It's a Stability vs. Change thing*.

The "Light" side is stability: continuing tradition, maintaining the status quo, building on the foundation of what came before. It creates order and structure, which helps promote communities and which, from the perspective of social creatures like humans (and the other species in the Star Wars galaxy) seems like it's Good. Because we're comfortable with routine, with knowing how the world around us functions.

The "Dark" side is change: it's fluid, shifting, creating novel things just for the sake of creating them, uprooting the foundations to allow itself to spread further in restless pursuit of the new. This is scary to most sentients, because if things are always changing, they can't rely on anything. They can never know if they can trust someone, they don't know if their next meal is going to be there when they need it, they don't know where they stand in relation to the beings around them. This is very attractive to those who are dissatisfied with their current social standing, because raw power of Change can, if controlled, naturally allow them to change their status for the better.

With this perspective, we can see that the reason the Force doesn't "shut down" the Dark Side is because the Dark Side is just as necessary to a healthy galaxy as the light. If nothing changes, society and life stagnates and dies out. But, if things change too much, life can't adapt fast enough and it dies out just the same. This also bears itself out in the two orders that exemplify the sides in the movies: the Jedi work tirelessly to maintain the current order, are slow to adapt, and their Order remains mostly unchanged for thousands of years. A powerful member trying to "shake things up," like Qui-Gon, is actively discouraged because the Jedi just can't adjust that quickly. They are the force of tradition in the Galaxy. The Sith, on the other hand, are changing constantly. Throughout the PT and the Clone Wars, at a time when there should never be more than two Sith at once, we see a total of six different Sith or partial Sith, all while Sidious is the Master, going round and round in a seemingly endless wheel of rotating apprentices. Even with the literal bare minimum number of members necessary to maintain a tradition, they can barely stop themselves from the constant turmoil. And from what I've heard, the EU Sith were the same.

* This is so much "In my own opinion" that it's not even funny.

2 hours ago, TaiChiSusan said:

So many intelligent observations and arguments here. I wonder if I might ask this group what happens when my character goes below zero in her morality score. She is currently at sixteen and has apprenticed herself to a Sith. She was trying to save her planet from Imperial occupation but due to her passionate emotions and impatience, was tricked into subservience to the invading Sith Lord. I play her now as having an addiction as powerful as bacon flavored chocolate to the power and admiration she gets from wielding the dark side force. But what happens if her morality goes below zero?

Thanks. TaiChiSusan

Sorry I didn't respond I guess I forgot to set this thread to notify. The rules will put you in kind of a punitive situation where you have to use dark side points for your powers but I think you still have to have a destiny point to use them unless I am remembering that wrong. The game is designed to have the characters as heroes, so falling to the dark side is not a desirable state as reflected in the mechanics. Also by RAW aren't you already Dark side if you're at 16? I thought the threshold in the book rules was 30 and below are Dark side.

My feeling on this is that there are Dark Side users and because it is quicker, easier, more seductive, it should be something you can do as a force user and reap benefits from it. I am no Sith fanboy, but it's pretty obvious that this dark side thing has it's attraction for characters in the universe. I hope this answered your question somewhat.

8 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Sorry I didn't respond I guess I forgot to set this thread to notify. The rules will put you in kind of a punitive situation where you have to use dark side points for your powers but I think you still have to have a destiny point to use them unless I am remembering that wrong. The game is designed to have the characters as heroes, so falling to the dark side is not a desirable state as reflected in the mechanics. Also by RAW aren't you already Dark side if you're at 16? I thought the threshold in the book rules was 30 and below are Dark side.

My feeling on this is that there are Dark Side users and because it is quicker, easier, more seductive, it should be something you can do as a force user and reap benefits from it. I am no Sith fanboy, but it's pretty obvious that this dark side thing has it's attraction for characters in the universe. I hope this answered your question somewhat.

Yes, the threshold is 30. If you hit 29 Morality or below, you're now a Dark Sider. As a Dark Sider, you would use Dark Side pips by default, and have to flip a Destiny Point and suffer Strain in order to use Light Side pips.

1 hour ago, Absol197 said:

The big problem I've always had with this debate is that it's framed in the terms of Good vs. Evil, and then, with the Force as the ultimate arbiter, it doesn't make sense.

If an action is Evil (capital "E"), and the Force is the judge, and it doesn't like Evil (remember, there was no "Light Side" before The Force Awakens; it was just the Force, and the Dark Side when it was misused), why does it permit those actions in the first place? Why is using the Force for bad even a thing?

The answer is that it's not a Good vs. Evil thing*. It's a Stability vs. Change thing*.

The "Light" side is stability: continuing tradition, maintaining the status quo, building on the foundation of what came before. It creates order and structure, which helps promote communities and which, from the perspective of social creatures like humans (and the other species in the Star Wars galaxy) seems like it's Good. Because we're comfortable with routine, with knowing how the world around us functions.

The "Dark" side is change: it's fluid, shifting, creating novel things just for the sake of creating them, uprooting the foundations to allow itself to spread further in restless pursuit of the new. This is scary to most sentients, because if things are always changing, they can't rely on anything. They can never know if they can trust someone, they don't know if their next meal is going to be there when they need it, they don't know where they stand in relation to the beings around them. This is very attractive to those who are dissatisfied with their current social standing, because raw power of Change can, if controlled, naturally allow them to change their status for the better.

With this perspective, we can see that the reason the Force doesn't "shut down" the Dark Side is because the Dark Side is just as necessary to a healthy galaxy as the light. If nothing changes, society and life stagnates and dies out. But, if things change too much, life can't adapt fast enough and it dies out just the same. This also bears itself out in the two orders that exemplify the sides in the movies: the Jedi work tirelessly to maintain the current order, are slow to adapt, and their Order remains mostly unchanged for thousands of years. A powerful member trying to "shake things up," like Qui-Gon, is actively discouraged because the Jedi just can't adjust that quickly. They are the force of tradition in the Galaxy. The Sith, on the other hand, are changing constantly. Throughout the PT and the Clone Wars, at a time when there should never be more than two Sith at once, we see a total of six different Sith or partial Sith, all while Sidious is the Master, going round and round in a seemingly endless wheel of rotating apprentices. Even with the literal bare minimum number of members necessary to maintain a tradition, they can barely stop themselves from the constant turmoil. And from what I've heard, the EU Sith were the same.

* This is so much "In my own opinion" that it's not even funny.

While I don't agree with your take on this I find it very thought provoking and interesting. I think it's not that the Force is inherently good, but that the light side of the force is inherently good, and the dark side is inherently evil. If we are to view the Force itself as having two sides, then it seems to me that what the judge does is to put actions in each basket, and associate them with each. Even if you suppose that there is no Light side, but just the Force and it doesn't like eveil, that then requires two separate things, and calling it the dark side is not a good description.

so your model I think was F = G DS = E which is kind of a depersonalized Zoroastrianism maybe?

I'm saying it's F = G + E but with G and E as separate values. This is the arbiter thing but I am not sure why this would not be a valid concept as the Force is said to have a will and all that.

Some are saying it's F = G + N + E where N =morally neutral Force. This is the idea that the N side of the force is best and the moral poles are a bad idea because they are not in sync with normal behavior.

I like your change vs. turmoil thing a lot though, and I think that could easily be incorporated into discussions by Force sensitive characters as a related topic. It's a cool idea and I want to use it but I have to think it through a bit as it has a lot of aspects to it.

Thank you for your post.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, the threshold is 30. If you hit 29 Morality or below, you're now a Dark Sider. As a Dark Sider, you would use Dark Side pips by default, and have to flip a Destiny Point and suffer Strain in order to use Light Side pips.

Oh ok I read it wrong then, I thought that they still had to flip destiny points to use Dark pips and I thought that was very punishing. Thank you for clarifying Tramp.

Just now, Archlyte said:

Oh ok I read it wrong then, I thought that they still had to flip destiny points to use Dark pips and I thought that was very punishing. Thank you for clarifying Tramp.

Nope. The real kick in the teeth is that they still gain Conflict for using DSPs , making redemption that much harder.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. The real kick in the teeth is that they still gain Conflict for using DSPs , making redemption that much harder.

Daaaamn! Yeah that is