13 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

That kind of seems like a rigid pathway you want for your game. Personally if I were playing I'd want little to do with the stories in the movies because we already know the outcome of those. Now if it was a non-canon game where our help actually mattered and it's possible for the Empire to win, then it gives a reason to join the Rebellion.

Personally I have as little to do with the stories in the movies as possible. I dont want to have to rewrite the movies or force the players to be second fiddle.

Let me make this clear as possible: I was talking about a specific circumstance. If my players decided they wanted to do a darkside game, and they managed to not go backstabapalloza, then the end game would be they are the emperors puppets the whole time.

This would happen right after I invent a zero point energy module, win the lottery six times in a row, and get declared God-Emperor of all the universe. Even then I would have to be in the exact right mood. So, its not really likely.

20 hours ago, korjik said:

I dont want to have to rewrite the movies or force the players to be second fiddle.

20 hours ago, korjik said:

the end game would be they are the emperors puppets the whole time.

Those two statements seem mutually exclusive.

Regardless, I agree with the first one I quoted. That's why I'm running an old republic game.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Those two statements seem mutually exclusive.

Regardless, I agree with the first one I quoted. That's why I'm running an old republic game.

Did you actually read what I said? Me running a darksiders campaign is not likely and not going to fall under the normal rules. Bad guys lose.

Quite frankly, if all my friends were hot an heavy to play dark side, I would get new friends

I think this is a contentious topic, which I didn't expect and thought my anti-evil group views were very much a freak anomaly.

I noticed that the newest episode of the order 66 podcast covered the idea of an evils campaign. I like that show but I'm having trouble with this episode as I feel like it's just not a good idea. Either you play bad guys right and the group eats itself, or you do fake evil and the group gets along like a normal group and only directs their evil outward for some reason. Even if a group is mutually beneficial an evil guy is going to always see that it would be better if he had control of that resource.

Again I think it kind of goes back to the fantasy of the kid who doesn't have to brush his teeth before he goes to bed. People like the idea of not having rules.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Even if a group is mutually beneficial an evil guy is going to always see that it would be better if he had control of that resource.  

If he's a puppy-kicking Saturday morning cartoon villain, sure. And if the group does 'eat itself' because everyone was vying for control, then that only proves that vying for control is not actually 'always better'.

1 hour ago, Vorzakk said:

If he's a puppy-kicking Saturday morning cartoon villain, sure. And if the group does 'eat itself' because everyone was vying for control, then that only proves that vying for control is not actually 'always better'.

Yep. Are you arguing for moral relativism in a setting with evil so readily apparent it can turn your eyes funny colors? Or are you just saying that the evil group members understand and embrace altruism? Do they limit their cooperative love only to other evil PCs, or do they extend their amiability to anyone?

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I think this is a contentious topic, which I didn't expect and thought my anti-evil group views were very much a freak anomaly.

I noticed that the newest episode of the order 66 podcast covered the idea of an evils campaign. I like that show but I'm having trouble with this episode as I feel like it's just not a good idea. Either you play bad guys right and the group eats itself, or you do fake evil and the group gets along like a normal group and only directs their evil outward for some reason. Even if a group is mutually beneficial an evil guy is going to always see that it would be better if he had control of that resource.

Again I think it kind of goes back to the fantasy of the kid who doesn't have to brush his teeth before he goes to bed. People like the idea of not having rules.

As I recall (didn’t listen the day after it dropped, because, like all of us, I never listen to the Order 66 Podcast), the hosts made a pretty definite point of stating that “bad guys” and “evil” aren’t always synonymous, and even cited some examples. So “playing bad guys right” doesn’t have to mean “the group eats itself.”

An Imperial campaign doesn’t have to be an “evil” campaign as far as the PCs go. They could be your average, everyday citizen of the Empire, signing up to serve their “country” (for want of a better term), getting out of their dead-end backwater existence (remember that Luke himself wanted to join the Imperial academy to get off of Tatooine), to hide from their past (a certain Corellian enlisted to avoid being caught by gangsters or arrested by...the Empire). The rank and file probably don’t know that the Emperor is (literally) a cackling villain straight out of a melodrama. Some might indeed be prejudiced against non-humans, but is that evil or unenlightened?

Lost Stars is regarded by many as one of the best new canon novels. It tells the story of a star-crossed couple who joined the Imperial Navy in their youth, and follows them through twists and turns through the original trilogy and up to the Battle of Jakku. I wouldn’t call either of them “evil.”

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Are you arguing for moral relativism in a setting with evil so readily apparent it can turn your eyes funny colors?

This is also the setting where one of the 'heroes' of the Rebellion shot a crippled guy in the back to make sure that he didn't talk. If you want to play the setting solid 'white hat / black hat', I have no problem with that; but I do have a bit problem with the assertion that anyone with a different perspective is just trying to fulfill childhood fantasies of poor dental hygiene.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Do they limit their cooperative love only to other evil PCs, or do they extend their amiability to anyone?

If they're smart, they extend their amiability to anyone whom it would benefit them to do so.

9 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

This is also the setting where one of the 'heroes' of the Rebellion shot a crippled guy in the back to make sure that he didn't talk. If you want to play the setting solid 'white hat / black hat', I have no problem with that; but I do have a bit problem with the assertion that anyone with a different perspective is just trying to fulfill childhood fantasies of poor dental hygiene.

If they're smart, they extend their amiability to anyone whom it would benefit them to do so.

lol ok you got me on that one. I guess I have to be more specific and say it's the desire for radical liberty.

As for the second part, wouldn't it be even smarter to extend amiability to everyone who isn't actively hostile to you for maximum benefit? I mean if it's just a matter of doing that then they should be able to kick that evil off pretty easy and start really raking it in due to reciprocity.

17 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

This is also the setting where one of the 'heroes' of the Rebellion shot a crippled guy in the back to make sure that he didn't talk. If you want to play the setting solid 'white hat / black hat', I have no problem with that; but I do have a bit problem with the assertion that anyone with a different perspective is just trying to fulfill childhood fantasies of poor dental hygiene.

Not to mention THE hero of the Rebellion spent a while whining about his uncle not letting him leave to attend the Imperial academy.

6 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

As for the second part, wouldn't it be even smarter to extend amiability to everyone who isn't actively hostile to you for maximum benefit? I mean if it's just a matter of doing that then they should be able to kick that evil off pretty easy and start really raking it in due to reciprocity.

So...putting on an amiable front to benefit yourself negates evil?

Cool. So, by that measure, Palpatine wasn’t evil.

25 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

As for the second part, wouldn't it be even smarter to extend amiability to everyone who isn't actively hostile to you for maximum benefit? I mean if it's just a matter of doing that then they should be able to kick that evil off pretty easy and start really raking it in due to reciprocity. 

Nytwyng beat me to it; but yea, that's exactly what Palpatine did. All that applause he got when he declared himself Emperor? He didn't get that by being a jerk to the senators; he got that by extending his amiability to them. And he continued to extend that amiability to them for nearly two decades; but the moment it was no longer beneficial for him to do so, he fired them all.

Just now, Vorzakk said:

Nytwyng beat me to it; but yea, that's exactly what Palpatine did. All that applause he got when he declared himself Emperor? He didn't get that by being a jerk to the senators; he got that by extending his amiability to them. And he continued to extend that amiability to them for nearly two decades; but the moment it was no longer beneficial for him to do so, he fired them all.

Well if the players can maintain that level of covert ****-dom then they deserve their rewards I guess

It's much easier to accomplish great things with evil intentions when you don't subscribe to the bat-crap insane-o school of cartoon villainy. Get a group of such individuals together and they will continue to cooperate so long as it's in their best interests. This is the 'organized' part of organized crime, and it can work for governments, cults, or pretty much any other grouping of people that decide to bad (not all by themselves).

23 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It's much easier to accomplish great things with evil intentions when you don't subscribe to the bat-crap insane-o school of cartoon villainy. Get a group of such individuals together and they will continue to cooperate so long as it's in their best interests. This is the 'organized' part of organized crime, and it can work for governments, cults, or pretty much any other grouping of people that decide to bad (not all by themselves).

If no red lightsabers are ignited, telekinetic chokes, or Force lightning are involved then I am with you. Somehow though I think that is what will be involved.

18 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Somehow though I think that is what will be involved.

I thought that too when my little sister wanted to play a dark-sider, but she really took the entire group by surprise on that front. While all of the players have known from the beginning, we're 42 sessions and the characters are only starting to get a clue; and I don't just mean that she's a dark-sider, they don't even know that she's Force-sensitive. I've been truly impressed that she'd been playing a Force-sensitive during the time of the Empire the way a smart Force-sensitive during that time would behave: by not running around making overt use of the Force all the time. In fact, in 42 sessions, she's probably used the Force less than half a dozen times; mostly for making subtle use of Seek and Sense to find things and look out for trouble. Her apprentice is the only one who knows the truth; everyone else just thinks she's a ganger from Nar Shadda with a bit of a mean streak. In our last session, however, they came up against some really dangerous and heavily-armored opponents; and she wound up pulling her lightsaber for the first time. And since most people in the galaxy think 'lightsaber' automatically equals 'Force user', they're probably going to start asking questions once the dust has settled.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

If no red lightsabers are ignited, telekinetic chokes, or Force lightning are involved then I am with you. Somehow though I think that is what will be involved.

Palpatine can do all of that. He can also run a galaxy-spanning government because he's mastered Dalton's Road House rule: Be nice... Until it's time not to be nice.

16 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Palpatine can do all of that. He can also run a galaxy-spanning government because he's mastered Dalton's Road House rule: Be nice... Until it's time not to be nice.

Well I love that quote lol, but you know what I mean. The great preponderance of Sith Fandom wants mainly the cartoon villain stuff. Like in the SWTOR game when the writers were bankrupt and had you go and claim the medicine for the villagers, but do it eeevilly!

(Disclaimer: I am making a joke forum dwellers, please don't hand me a list of the bad guy side quests from the game. It's just a joke based on my experience playing the game.)

While this is about DnD rather than Star Wars, I feel like it still holds true for this system as well as for many others. If I play a Dark Side character it's not because I don't like playing by the rules or expect there to be no consequences for my bad actions. I expect consequences, harsh ones that make everything more difficult. I do it because I expect there to be more interesting roleplaying in it and I like exploring flawed and broken characters. They make things more interesting and can't really expect a happy ending.

5 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

While this is about DnD rather than Star Wars, I feel like it still holds true for this system as well as for many others. If I play a Dark Side character it's not because I don't like playing by the rules or expect there to be no consequences for my bad actions. I expect consequences, harsh ones that make everything more difficult. I do it because I expect there to be more interesting roleplaying in it and I like exploring flawed and broken characters. They make things more interesting and can't really expect a happy ending.

Coleville is very much a D&D guy and what I would say is middle school (referring to old and new not something derogatory) in that he fully embraces the tropes of D&D and all of the old conventions but he has more of a narrative bent from being a writer I think.

None of what he said gets around the issue of evil characters operating on the predatory principle of I win, you lose. If you introduce that into a party and the other players are not on board with being the "Losers" who can supply the evil guy with his coolness you have a problem. Also the amplitude of evil is something to mention, as the farther toward overt evil you get the worse the cooperation and reciprocity is going to be if the character is going to be played to fidelity. If you like PvP then great, but if you don't the evil PC is just an annoying turd the "audience" will view as being a liability. Sooner or later someone will inconvenience the evil guy and he will strike out with his evil malice and overreact.

Also the NPCs in the world in games with truly evil characters tend to be doormats which makes the world boring so that the evil guy can feel powerful. In participating in games like this the NPCs are usually the main food for the evil character and the PCs are dessert. The other type of evil character, as I have said, are just characters who are jerks but they don't act overtly and engage in a lot of posing. "I would not do that if I were you" type stuff over and over again.

This premise also proposes the idea that characters who aren't evil can't be interesting. Which makes no sense to me.

On 9/25/2018 at 7:54 PM, HappyDaze said:

It's much easier to accomplish great things with evil intentions when you don't subscribe to the bat-crap insane-o school of cartoon villainy. Get a group of such individuals together and they will continue to cooperate so long as it's in their best interests. This is the 'organized' part of organized crime, and it can work for governments, cults, or pretty much any other grouping of people that decide to bad (not all by themselves).

This is pretty much exactly what my now dark side players want. They told me as much multiple times out of the game that they want to pursue this storyline but they want the group to be together still, which puts it on me to create a goal for them all to work towards, regardless of their Force alignment.

I also find this discussion pretty interesting, I hadn't looked at it in a few days. The topic of discussion was never about playing evil characters but about playing characters that went to the dark side, or even characters that came back from the dark side. From my point of view, the dark side doesn't necessarily mean evil, it just means a different method of using the Force (using emotions to fuel it instead of serenity and calmness). There are numerous Legends examples and even some canon ones (Asajj Ventress towards the end of Clone Wars and in Dark Disciple) of characters that primarily use the Dark Side (emotions) to use the Force but they aren't cackling-while-torturing-innocents evil. That said, there are likely way more examples, especially in canon, of characters that are on the dark side and are evil. So it's a very real possibility that that evil mentality can transfer into a game. In this respect, I really like my group, because we're all level-headed enough to realize this is a game, we are doing this for fun and that the character choices are often to enhance the drama and the story of it all. They wouldn't think to attack one another openly or be jerks to each other because I have expressly allowed PvP in the game, so they know the consequences if they push another character too far. They also know I only allow PvP if it fits the story, IE you cannot impale others with your lightsaber in their sleep just because the rules of the game allow it, but you could fight each other if it fits within the current story and character choices, and if all parties are okay with it.

I will state again that I never intended for this to be a discussion about playing evil characters. I've already had a game where the group went evil (not necessarily dark side but just straight evil). They became the most evil you can be in an RPG, a pack of argumentative, unruly, murderhobos. This was my first game and though I repeatedly stated my disinterest for running an evil campaign and that the intent from the start was always a heroic campaign, the players ignored it and did what they wanted. Rather than be a jerk and kill the game just because it didn't fit with my interpretation of the most fun, I decided to view it as a challenge on how to run an evil campaign and make it fun for everyone, including myself.

7 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

This is pretty much exactly what my now dark side players want. They told me as much multiple times out of the game that they want to pursue this storyline but they want the group to be together still, which puts it on me to create a goal for them all to work towards, regardless of their Force alignment.

I also find this discussion pretty interesting, I hadn't looked at it in a few days. The topic of discussion was never about playing evil characters but about playing characters that went to the dark side, or even characters that came back from the dark side. From my point of view, the dark side doesn't necessarily mean evil, it just means a different method of using the Force (using emotions to fuel it instead of serenity and calmness). There are numerous Legends examples and even some canon ones (Asajj Ventress towards the end of Clone Wars and in Dark Disciple) of characters that primarily use the Dark Side (emotions) to use the Force but they aren't cackling-while-torturing-innocents evil. That said, there are likely way more examples, especially in canon, of characters that are on the dark side and are evil. So it's a very real possibility that that evil mentality can transfer into a game. In this respect, I really like my group, because we're all level-headed enough to realize this is a game, we are doing this for fun and that the character choices are often to enhance the drama and the story of it all. They wouldn't think to attack one another openly or be jerks to each other because I have expressly allowed PvP in the game, so they know the consequences if they push another character too far. They also know I only allow PvP if it fits the story, IE you cannot impale others with your lightsaber in their sleep just because the rules of the game allow it, but you could fight each other if it fits within the current story and character choices, and if all parties are okay with it.

I will state again that I never intended for this to be a discussion about playing evil characters. I've already had a game where the group went evil (not necessarily dark side but just straight evil). They became the most evil you can be in an RPG, a pack of argumentative, unruly, murderhobos. This was my first game and though I repeatedly stated my disinterest for running an evil campaign and that the intent from the start was always a heroic campaign, the players ignored it and did what they wanted. Rather than be a jerk and kill the game just because it didn't fit with my interpretation of the most fun, I decided to view it as a challenge on how to run an evil campaign and make it fun for everyone, including myself.

Hey GG I'm glad you are ok with he direction the thread has gone and I appreciate that kind of magnanimity. I can't agree with you that the dark side is just emotional Force use though. The setting is very much about good vs. evil and the EU stuff and kids cartoon stuff that goes against that is often just diluting for no good reason in my opinion. People have a tough time with the idea of stoicism, but that to me is a pretty good example of the Jedi philosophy, whereas the dark siders are essentially sociopaths. It's so much so that they had to come up with a bad guy law saying don't kill all the other bad guys.

Moral Relativism is easier in many ways because you just have to justify the perspective to justify the deeds, and because many people embrace that philosophy consciously or not, the only-when-convenient evil guy is seen as 'realistic' or 'normal.' Hey I feel like killing people at times, but the miracle isn't that I could do it, it's that I don't do it. The evil person is a slave to their animal drives and cares nothing for conscience because it inhibits those drives. If a dog is hungry he eats, feels the urge to reproduce he mates, is scared or angered he kills.

Don't worry about killing the game, the evil characters will most likely do that for you. That or they will turn it into a playground of the perverse and the NPCs will become fodder for their displays.

I found this video on The Reality of the Force, which I believe is pretty pertinent to this topic.

Good video Tramp thanks for posting it. I have rarely had the problem of players trying to be Too Good, as that is actually just usually stubbornness in a character that is identified as good, or in insisting on others conforming to the good acts. But the player who wants to do the easy and selfish thing is the rule. If you add cruelty to that you get an evil character. The Jedi in the prequels are the 'boring' monks of the force that people can't relate to easily. Because what people want are normal people but with Force powers. Someone easy to play but with extra cool powers. The easiest way to get such a character is to make them a Dark Sider.

I really liked the scene where George talked about being selfish and wanting things and that leading you to lashing out as others. He doesn't describe it in uncertain terms, he straight up says always leads to that end.

3 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Don't worry about killing the game, the evil characters will most likely do that for you. That or they will turn it into a playground of the perverse and the NPCs will become fodder for their displays.

Oh that game ended last year, only campaign of mine to actually have a conclusion oddly enough. All others died early on; the murderhobo group stuck with it to the end. ?

While I certainly agree on the concepts of what the Jedi and Sith philosophy is as far as Selflessness and Selfishness, I think it's not quite as simple as that in real life, nor is it as simple in the context of Star Wars. Nobody is entirely selfless or selfish, Everyone has a mix of both aspects. When you go too far to one end, you tend to become imbalanced. One can see this reflected in the characters in the movies. Prequel Jedi were so selfless they gave up a lot of their own agency to be guardians of the Republic, which backed them into a corner when a war began. Even Palpatine, as evil incarnate as he is, still treats Vader like a friend for the most part, up until he's beaten by Luke in their duel.

In the context of the RPG, it gets even more complicated. While a movie can certainly have characters act a certain way at their core, that's usually due to a singular vision. In an RPG, the GM can't really dictate the way a PC acts without removing the agency of the player. Within the rules of the game, it is possible to be a Dark Side character but that doesn't mean you suddenly lose control of your character to some mysterious, corrupting, invisible dark side entity that possesses them. The way I see it, you aren't corrupted by an outside force, you are corrupted by your own desires and the actions you take toward those desires. So with players in an RPG, it really rests on them as to how "dark" they become. Do they flirt with temptations but ultimately overcome them like Luke? Do they give in to the darkness for power for a short time and then return to the light like Ezra? Do they fall hard like Darth Vader? Do they stay dark like Palpatine? Do they redeem themselves like Anakin? These choices are theirs to make, just as their character is theirs to control.

I encourage them to make whatever choices they desire in the game, with the added caveat of there is always consequences to actions. Just like how Jedi are tested in their beliefs and in how far they will go to be guardians of peace and justice, those that align with the dark side should also be tested in similar manner. This next session the dark siders will be tested to see how far they will take things, the choice is theirs on that matter, just as the consequences are theirs for whatever choices they make.