Sith and Dark side characters! Including new skills, races, and ect.

All we can do is guess. Those in the know aren't or can't tell.

I wouldn' be surprised if there weren't a dark side supplement of some sort in the pipeline.

16 minutes ago, LordEnforcer said:

Sith and Dark side characters! Including new skills, races, and ect.

As the general assumption of the game is that the PCs are going to be good guys, I wouldn't get your hopes up of seeing such a thing anytime soon. We've not seen an Imperials-only sourcebook for the Age of Rebellion line, and folks have been asking for something similar pretty much since the AoR Beta was released.

While the information might be dated (and for an entirely different system), WotC did publish a Dark Side Sourcebook for the OCR version of their Star Wars RPG that delved into the mindset of playing a dark side Force user and the nature of the dark side, even if a chunk of the lore is now in the Legends category.

FaD and AoR PCs are usually the good guys, but as someone playing in a Edge campaign as a Mystic, I've been afforded more leeway to dip into darker activities occasionally. Indeed, my character has gotten a rep for being incredibly nice and charming until you cross her, at which point "I would like to rage, please".

It would be nice to have something for those who may not be going for full light side. I imagine there's quite a few in the grey territory, and even a couple more who are leaning darker than that. I reckon the Warrior book might actually put something forward for that given it mentions controversial lightsaber styles and conflict trees, and perhaps even the Mystic one will with it's Papa Palp on the front cover.

I'd be surprised if there was a specific dark side source book planned, but I could certainly see either an adventure module or a location guide with an emphasis on Inquisitors or Sith in general. Lots of equipment, places of interest, and potential story ripe for the picking there.

With the cross line Dawn of Rebellion book there’s an absolute mountain of future possibilities. “Agents of the Empire” would be lots of fun.

2 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

As the general assumption of the game is that the PCs are going to be good guys, I wouldn't get your hopes up of seeing such a thing anytime soon.

I really hope this isn’t FFG’s actual opinion. They have presented the first SWRPG where playing a dark or grey character is fully supported within the rules, and they keep offering options that encourage testing the boundaries. They even offer an option to start Dark.

If anything the biggest thing they have failed to convey is that Dark doesn’t mean Sith. A “Shadows of the Force” book devoted to showcasing how a dark pc can contribute to a party, do bad things for good reasons, or good things for selfish reasons.

1 hour ago, Richardbuxton said:

I really hope this isn’t FFG’s actual opinion. They have presented the first SWRPG where playing a dark or grey character is fully supported within the rules, and they keep offering options that encourage testing the boundaries. They even offer an option to start Dark.

It's mentioned in the sidebars of the EotE and AoR corebooks about PCs "turning dark side" that the general intent is that the PCs are going to be, if not out and out heroic, then at least not completely amoral b@sterds; they'd be at worst shades of light grey much like Han Solo was in ANH and most of ESB.

Think Sam even said that the design intent was that most of the conflict a PC would generate during a session would be more from using dark side pips to generate Force points as opposed to committing actions that merit substantial amounts of conflict. Which, if one looks at the the sample list of what actions earn conflict, a lot of what would standard operating procedure for a fairly typical D&D adventuring party would earn a F&D character a lot of conflict in a hurry.

The other issue is that the setting itself generally reinforces that the ends do not justify the means, and that doing bad things is still bad no matter what reasons you give for them. Darth Vader may have wanted to bring peace and stability to the galaxy (a noble and laudable goal), but he did a whole mess of evil things in the process.

Still doesn’t mean a player can’t play a deceitful self centred dark Sider in a party of smugglers. There’s plenty of murder hobo non Force Sensitive characters, a Rebel who pushes the boundaries wouldn’t be unheard of, even if they end up fighting for Saw.

Im just saying the mechanics are there to support and play a dark side character, or even group of characters. It would be a shame not to devote a book to that.

Edit: I do recognise there’s a lot of players who flat refuse to try playing a shades of grey character. That’s fine, I don’t care. But there’s also lots of players who love to role play challenging characters, who enjoy exploring emotionally conflicted characters.

I have only spoken of the Dark/Grey stuff here. But a book devoted to the Jedi Order would be awesome too.

2 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

It's mentioned in the sidebars of the EotE and AoR corebooks about PCs "turning dark side" that the general intent is that the PCs are going to be, if not out and out heroic, then at least not completely amoral b@sterds; they'd be at worst shades of light grey much like Han Solo was in ANH and most of ESB.

Think Sam even said that the design intent was that most of the conflict a PC would generate during a session would be more from using dark side pips to generate Force points as opposed to committing actions that merit substantial amounts of conflict. Which, if one looks at the the sample list of what actions earn conflict, a lot of what would standard operating procedure for a fairly typical D&D adventuring party would earn a F&D character a lot of conflict in a hurry.

The other issue is that the setting itself generally reinforces that the ends do not justify the means, and that doing bad things is still bad no matter what reasons you give for them. Darth Vader may have wanted to bring peace and stability to the galaxy (a noble and laudable goal), but he did a whole mess of evil things in the process.

while true they also set out to allow one to fall to the darkside and get redeemed. Which is why we have the duel powers like protect unleash, heal harm, bind. I think they made the system fully capable of handling an evil campaign. even if their general goal is more on the light side of things.

We've talked about this a bit before.

The big thing that makes doing Darkside campaigns so hard is it requires the players actually be willing to play with each others.

Ask around and you'll find that among those who have run "Evil" campaigns in various RPGs you'll see a lot of stories about Players F---ing each other over at the drop of a hat. The second Steve gets to close to the catwalk in the main base, another player tries to shove him over the side.

That's the trouble. In various fiction, we've made villains so evil and unrelatable that most people think they are totally inhuman and more than happy to murder each other given the first opportunity. So that's how most players try and run them.

If a Darkside Sourcebook were to be made, it would probably have to spend a lot of time talking about how to get teh players to play the part of the villain in such a way that relatabale. You have to make them see why individuals like Thrawn, Pryce, Krennic, Tarkin, the Inquisitors, and Darth Vader do what they do, and work together to do it.

This poses 2 core issues.

1) A lot of people just plain can't. Seeing how someone willing to kill thousands of innocent people in one day, and then sit down for dinner with their family afterward thinks is difficult and not something people are willing to do. It's dangerous territory. It requires you play a character that is the kind of people we're taught not to be like.

2) It can lead to nasty misunderstandings. It's all fun and games when you talk about at home, it's another when you do it at a restaurant, or at work, or a classroom. RPGs already went through this in the 80's we don't need to do it again.

I definitely agree with that. A book that dedicated time to integrating a grey/dark character into a group would be excellent.

I will point out that any extreme character can disrupt a group, Law Good Paladin anyone? It’s down to the group really.

On 14/02/2018 at 1:58 PM, Ghostofman said:

We've talked about this a bit before.

The big thing that makes doing Darkside campaigns so hard is it requires the players actually be willing to play with each others.

Ask around and you'll find that among those who have run "Evil" campaigns in various RPGs you'll see a lot of stories about Players F---ing each other over at the drop of a hat. The second Steve gets to close to the catwalk in the main base, another player tries to shove him over the side.

That's the trouble. In various fiction, we've made villains so evil and unrelatable that most people think they are totally inhuman and more than happy to murder each other given the first opportunity. So that's how most players try and run them.

If a Darkside Sourcebook were to be made, it would probably have to spend a lot of time talking about how to get teh players to play the part of the villain in such a way that relatabale. You have to make them see why individuals like Thrawn, Pryce, Krennic, Tarkin, the Inquisitors, and Darth Vader do what they do, and work together to do it.

This poses 2 core issues.

1) A lot of people just plain can't. Seeing how someone willing to kill thousands of innocent people in one day, and then sit down for dinner with their family afterward thinks is difficult and not something people are willing to do. It's dangerous territory. It requires you play a character that is the kind of people we're taught not to be like.

2) It can lead to nasty misunderstandings. It's all fun and games when you talk about at home, it's another when you do it at a restaurant, or at work, or a classroom. RPGs already went through this in the 80's we don't need to do it again.

This is why I made it a point to roll up social or face if I ever get in an "evil" campaign.

My first action will then be giving the whole "whatever our differences, we all need each other if we are going to survive. Meaning, we need to work together." speech to convince everyone to at least work together.

I will roll a dang convince/charm/whatever check if I have to.

14 hours ago, ExileofEnya said:

This is why I made it a point to roll up social or face if I ever get in an "evil" campaign.

My first action will then be giving the whole "whatever our differences, we all need each other if we are going to survive. Meaning, we need to work together." speech to convince everyone to at least work together.

I will roll a dang convince/charm/whatever check if I have to.

Typically the reason why "evil" characters work together is because they are forced to by an outside party (in addition to even 'evil' people understanding you have to play nice with others to accomplish your goals). A good option for trying to run an "evil" campaign is that the PCs work for an equally "evil" superior who tolerates absolutely no bull crap from his employees. Disregard orders and go murder hoboing during a mission? Expect the repercussions to be equally as severe. Since that boss is "evil" the PCs should expect ZERO leniency when it comes to stupid behavior.

56 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Typically the reason why "evil" characters work together is because they are forced to by an outside party (in addition to even 'evil' people understanding you have to play nice with others to accomplish your goals). A good option for trying to run an "evil" campaign is that the PCs work for an equally "evil" superior who tolerates absolutely no bull crap from his employees. Disregard orders and go murder hoboing during a mission? Expect the repercussions to be equally as severe. Since that boss is "evil" the PCs should expect ZERO leniency when it comes to stupid behavior.

Classic example: Suicide Squad, from DC Comics.

A bunch of nasty folks being forced to work together under the auspice of a very unforgiving overseer who won't hesitate to cash them out if push comes to shove or if the felons try to pull either a fast one or a runner.

6 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Typically the reason why "evil" characters work together is because they are forced to by an outside party (in addition to even 'evil' people understanding you have to play nice with others to accomplish your goals). A good option for trying to run an "evil" campaign is that the PCs work for an equally "evil" superior who tolerates absolutely no bull crap from his employees. Disregard orders and go murder hoboing during a mission? Expect the repercussions to be equally as severe. Since that boss is "evil" the PCs should expect ZERO leniency when it comes to stupid behavior.

Tenth Rule of Running Campaigns: If placed under a malevolent benefactor that is threatening them into anything, expect the players first instinct to be to try and assassinate/kill/betray said benefactor the moment they get the chance or take any opportunity to kill them. Doubly so for an evil campaign.

Unless, of-course, that's the point of the game. Which could be a fun in it's own way.

I guess what I'm saying is, like with anything, a GM has to be careful when using coercion to force PC co-operation in game as it can backfire (normally in the most wonderful of ways) on them hard if that's the players ONLY motivation to do something in game.

14 hours ago, ExileofEnya said:

I guess what I'm saying is, like with anything, a GM has to be careful when using coercion to force PC co-operation in game as it can backfire (normally in the most wonderful of ways) on them hard if that's the players ONLY motivation to do something in game.

I think for it to work as the focus of a campaign, the "evil compelling force" has to be something the PCs never actually interact with directly, and it is a force that is so powerful and overarching there would be no hope of defeating it, at least until the very end. This compelling force only interacts with the PCs through intermediaries or remote conversations. They are effectively the head of a church, king of an empire, or perhaps even an organization rather than an individual, so there is no real opportunity to just eliminate one person to earn their 'freedom'.

All in all, it has to be establish during session 0 that this individual/organization is the glue that holds together the plot, the campaign, and the party. It all comes back to the social contract that is part of any RPG, and ensuring all players are OK with the content matter being run, that the GM is upfront and fair about the expectations of the campaign, and everything that goes along with it.