This comes up fairly often due to people's varying views on the darkside and how it is represented.

I wanted to answer your question @penpenpen before i speak on theory.
I am blessed at my table to have a group of role players who have very similar views on how the darkside works and how it affects people and currently we're running an Old republic campaign from the side of the Sith Empire and so everyone who uses the force is a darksider anyway. For me it comes more down to them roleplaying appropriately and being able to trust them to be more individually focused and more willing to do the thing that gets them where they've got to go. Consequences should be a less frequent consideration than they would usually be and at that point cruelty and other means of getting what they want is more commonplace the deeper they dive.

In line with @Donovan Morningfire 's first post (I LOLED AT MOUSTACHE TWIRLING) You are not the cheesy evil person. At my table, especially at the bottom of the rung, I play it as my darksiders are far quicker to jump to extremes to resolve situations and they often will do what is best for their character and less so what is best for them.
This for me started as a situation where weapons were drawn they went first and didn't ask questions and evolved into a more recent situation where the same character was attempting to extract information and defaults to intimdiation to now a point where a character in a similar situation tortured the person before even asking anything as he believe that was the most likely to get what he wants.

I suppose what I believe is that a true darksider (much like megatron...jesus i just typed that) sees their deisres above all else including the well being of others. The escalation of that 'darkness' should be the rising price of what you're willing to pay to get what you want and at first you might have a lot of lines you're not willing to cross and then in the end nothing you have to cross. The ends always justify the means for a darksider and the journey for one should be the end being more focused on the individual and the means becoming more and more extreme.

At your table my suggestion is to make sure they understand that and find a way to get people going in that direction.

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:50 PM, Aluminium Falcon said:

Note: all instances of * are for footnotes rather than filtering

In a game we are just starting to assemble... none of my players haunt the forums so I can type freely... will contain a different but related situation: A Jedi character (takes place during the Clone Wars) starting off having fallen to the Dark Side u nbeknownst the others characters/players (the actual player knows this of course but the character himself is in blind denial). The character is amicable if austere and believes firmly in "the will of the Force". Sadly, the war has taken its toll and the character cannot feel the Force as clearly as he once did. To make matters worse, he is mistaking his own impulses for the will of the Force (it is a more comforting than the idea that Force might just be ignoring him). Simply put, the character really believes that he is on the exact right path even when having veered off of it (how this will actually manifest in game remains to be seen) and that is ultimately what the player wants to explore: a road to doom paved with good intentions.
The actual plot involves rumors of artificially inducing Force Sensitivity. The intended end game (with various paths that can avoid it) is for this wayward soul to be the "final boss"* so to speak as he decides, with much sorrow if little hesitation, to kill the party rather than risk the secret** getting out.

Anyhoo... The idea of evil being unaware that it is evil*** feels like it fits right in that 0 - 30 Morality spot.

* We created the game working backwards from this twist

** Added tragedy: its all false anyway

*** Some comics writers have enjoyed portraying the likes of Sinestro and even Lex Luthor this way, clearly villians to the reader but in their own minds convinced that they serve the greater good

Aye and just for clarification on my stance, I believe the Dark side acts on the same way on some people, falling to the dark side is just falling to some manner of depravity that the person mightn't be aware of. I guess that's what they intended to happen with Biass Offe, who had just eventually desensitised so much that she didn't really give too much thought toward throwing one of her friends under a bus because she was able to justify it from her perspective of making some kind of statement. That being said, never watched the show, I only really know of the example, something I haven't found time for yet.

I fluff morality more as an mechanic toward representing my moral strengths and weaknesses, curiosity and obsession. When my character is really conflicted (below 45) he expresses his obsession much more strongly then usual, sometimes even going lone wolf if it is dramatically appropriate, but when he is closer and beyond 70 he expresses a broader range of interests; like he originality built a lightsabre because it was a curious relic that called out to him, or that he will sometimes as the parties artisan just craft something up for the sake of experimentation, or he will even use his force powers in interesting ways. He commonly uses misdirect as a tool of silent communication and he and one of his "apprentices" (I use the term loosely, it was more of a mutual partnership) were able to have entire conversations silently, and indeed he's going to start using Influence as a potential rehab measure. "This is what you feel currently, and this is what you could be if you give up on abusing the force and just accept things as they are."

I really like playing my character when he's curious, the amount of unconventional ideas he can generate is fun to play out on a table perspective compared to a more traditional Jedi view of minimalistic use of the force, though it ties in quite nicely with obsession which he will stop at nothing to achieve a goal (in this case, wipe out the sith, as in our setting my character was largely responsible for the return of a sith lord who has claimed a deserter of the party as his vessel.) and will get increasingly frustrated at lower morality ratings; believing that others are much less committed toward the war against Darkness then himself. It creates a nice bit of table tension and also some nice arcs where he discovers that sometimes, taking some time to prepare is much more advantageous then charging after the first solution, but also to show that the quickest route isn't always the correct route; a danger when it comes to obsession as it can one day force a character to take that last step into personal corruption.

Key thing with any dark sider is that they should have a very self orientated view, it's partly why they are obsessed with power and personal freedom that ends with other people, they see themselves as the solution to the problem. As @Luahk put eloquently out, making sure the table understands the expectations of the setting is pretty cool.

That and I felt Star Wars isn't a setting worth losing my hair over; partly because I am naturally bald but also because I feel that a hobby isn't worth being negative about. At the end of the day the star wars as a franchise is casual and fickle; looking for any serious depth or explanation within this series will only leave one grossly disappointed.

I like that notion that LordBritish put forth of having the character's Morality score influence whether they're more inclined towards their Emotional Strength or Emotional Weakness.

So just spitballing an idea for a (very) minor tweak to the Morality system...

If a PC's Morality is between 41 and 59, they don't feel a particularly strong inclination towards their Emotional Strength or Weakness; this is probably the case for most living beings in the galaxy, and swing between one or the other as the situation and circumstances warrant.

If a PC's Morality is 40 or less, then they're slipping towards the dark side, and would have stronger inclinations towards their Emotional Weakness; a PC with Anger would lash out more frequently, while a PC with Recklessness would dive into dangerous/unknown situations without hesitation, and a PC with Coldness would be increasingly aloof and dismissive of others. Perhaps the GM would apply a setback die to rolls where the PC is acting in a way that is diametrically opposed to their Emotional Weakness in situations that are highly stressful and/or important to the adventure's plot, but gains a boost die and a point of Conflict if they act in a way that fully plays to their Emotional Weakness.

However, once the PC dips below 40 Morality, they have indeed fallen to the dark side, and thus are much more susceptible to their Emotional Weakness as it relates to their baser instincts. In that case, the PC would suffer a setback die on any rolls that require them to go against their Emotional Weakness, but gain a boost die on any rolls that allow them to play to that same trait. So the PC with Recklessness would suffer a setback die on any roll where caution and deliberation are needed, but gains a boost die to any roll where they act without thinking or consideration of the consequences of their action.

On the flip side, once a PC's Morality goes above 60 Morality, they become more in tune with their better nature, and tend to act more in line with their Emotional Strength; a PC with Compassion would be much more inclined to help those in need, while a PC with Discipline is very focused and inclined to think matters through, and a PC with Bravery would press forward in spite of the risks a given task might present, but do so with a sense of calm certainty. Mechanically, the GM might assign a point of Conflict if the PC willingly and knowingly acts in a way that is diametrically opposed to their Emotional Strength, increasing to 2 Conflict if the situation is highly stressful and/or plot-important.

Once that PC goes over 70 Morality, they're not only more at peace and in tune with the Force, but also with their inner selves. As such, the PC gains a boost die to rolls made in stressful and/or plot-important situations when their actions align with their Emotional Strength, but suffer 1 Conflict when their actions in those same types of situations align with their Emotional Weakness. So the PC with Bravery/Cruelty that's at Light Side Paragon would gain a boost die to their Discipline check to resist fear when facing off with a particularly terrifying Inquisitor, but would suffer 1 Conflict if they made sure the Inquisitor's death was as painful and humiliating as possible.

I like it. Good ideas!

@Donovan Morningfire Swish.

9 hours ago, Luahk said:

@Donovan Morningfire Swish.

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:07 PM, kaosoe said:

I like it. Good ideas!

Thanks.

Probably needs some polish (quite possibly a lot of polish), and does require player buy-in just as the current as-is Morality system does.

But it would give having an Emotional Strength/Weakness a bit more substance while potentially allowing them to have an impact on the character's Morality score without having to use the "triggering Morality" optional rule in the GM chapter.

Several mentions of anti-heroes have been made in this thread: i.e. Daredevil (surprisingly not mentioned I think was Deadpool)

Anyways, I think if a player wants to have a PC that is a darksider and is trying to play with a mixed group of lightsiders or at least hero's then it's probably helpful to think of the darksider as an antihero: Someone who will do the wrong things for the right reasons. There's an older but very good episode of the Order 66 podcast (ep 18) about playing darksiders that you may want to check out.

One other thought was that some folks seem to indicate that the dark side is about selfishness. I don't think this is always the case. I think that Magneto (perhaps my favorite villain) is a great example, though be it Marvel, of someone who does bad things with good intentions. Given his depth and good intentions, it also allows Magneto to work with the X-men when things really get real.

I have no problems with anti-heroes, but there is a problem with it regarding the dark side. If you can run around doing mostly good stuff using the dark side then pretty much everything that has been said about the dark side being a corrupting influence is pretty much bullpuckey. As I don't want to fall back on "You're playing your character wrong!", it'd be nice if there was some kind of a mechanic that at least encouraged characters to act a bit in line with the way we are told the dark side tempts people to do.

After all, if you try to stick to the light, there's quite a list of things you shouldn't do, nudging you in the right direction. With the exception of the use of some force powers, there's really not a lot that tempts/encourages you to act like a darksider, meaning that the temptation of the dark side isn't really any danger. You can remain pretty much an altruistic hero will using darkside points like crazy, with the only real risk being that you slide towards light if you don't use enough of them, and I'd be hard pressed to even call that a slap on the wrist.

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I have no problems with anti-heroes, but there is a problem with it regarding the dark side. If you can run around doing mostly good stuff using the dark side then pretty much everything that has been said about the dark side being a corrupting influence is pretty much bullpuckey.

I don't think of it this way. Narratively, if you use a dark side pip, you do so by tapping into dark emotions (fear, hate and anger). As an antihero you may do this more often but in reality you are probably doing 'mostly bad stuff' but for the right reasons.

Think of it this way: What if Luke had killed Vader and the Emperor in RotJ? Just outright given into his fear and hatred and struck them down, no conversation. Would it have been a good thing that he did? Seems like it, yes. Would he have slipped towards (or into) the dark side? Yes. Would he have tapped into some dark side pips to do it? Yes. Probably an antihero.

Also and probably more to your point, If you want the use of dark side points to have more of a sting (pull to the dark) then you can roll for morality every two sessions, which is even listed as an option in the book. This would push the PCs to the dark side much more for otherwise benign use of dark pips. And once they are darksiders, there are additional mechanics, like decreased strain, increased WT and loss of a light side destiny point each session.

If a pc is a darsider Force user he/she should not have access to lightside destiny points but only to darkside ones.

2 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

If a pc is a darsider Force user he/she should not have access to lightside destiny points but only to darkside ones.

Can't. The Dark Side Destiny Points are for GM use only.

3 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

If a pc is a darsider Force user he/she should not have access to lightside destiny points but only to darkside ones.

That would be a terrible idea, as that means the PCs of a mixed group would have the ability to flip the destiny points back and forth between them. Destiny points would, in effect, be near unlimited.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Can't. The Dark Side Destiny Points are for GM use only.

I'd be willing to let players spend Dark Side Destiny on a case-by-case basis to screw themselves over, such as flipping one to establish things like "Normally, fast talking my way past this guard wouldn't be too hard, but as it turns out, I was at boot camp with this guy before I defected from the Imperial Army and chances are he might recognize me".

What sane player would do such a thing, I might rhetorically imply that you may ask? Well, some are just gluttons for punishment drama, while others are just really desperately in need of a destiny point. It's a good option to keep open, because never underestimate your players ability to help out screwing them over, at least when properly motivated. Or not.

Erm it's difficult mechanically and honestly I came on this topic hoping someone had figured it out.

The game, in my view, quite clearly expects you to play as the good guys or at least not all out darksiders. The rule about them becoming NPCs highlights that and its one of the real downsides of the system for me. I have pages and pages of rules my table plays with but we've never been able to agree on a suitable ruleset for darksiders. I was hoping and praying that the mystic book would offer us a solution that was not only appropriate but built in but those pages are largely fluff and I was extremely disappointed.

@penpenpen what @Donovan Morningfire put is the closest I've seen to something that I wouldn't mind within the system as intended.
But since I dislike the Morality system as a general we've taken to handling it narratively but as I did point out I only have that luxury because I have a table of people with similar views on this part of the SW lore and who are all competent RPers enough that I can trust them.
I do think *something* has to be fleshed out for dark side players specifically but I don't have any ideas that I actually like.

In so far as dark siders "acting like dark siders," much like the Morality system in general the onus is upon the players to act in a certain way.

Taking a look at the suggested conflict chart, a significant number of actions that would generate conflict are many of the go-to methods of a lot of D&D adventuring parties.

in that respect, acting like a dark sider is again not so much going full-blown Snidely Whiplash, but simply taking the easiest and quickest method to achieve what goal they want, without regard for who or what gets harmed. In response to Dumbledore's challenge to Harry in Goblet of Fire, when the time comes to decide between doing what is right and doing what is easy, the dark sider will far more often than not lean towards doing what is easy in order to expedite their objectives.

To pull from the movies, consider Luke's rather convoluted plot to free Han in RotJ. He tried multiple approaches to free Han without excessive violence, even gave Jabba a few chances to simply release Han (and company) and that would be the end of it. Granted, Luke knew that Jabba would never actually take those chances, but he still offered those chances.

In contrast, a dark sider in that same situation wouldn't have bothered, and instead would have sent a message saying "either you release this person, or I come down there and wipe you, your goons, and your palace off the face of the planet," and if Jabba refused, the dark sider would then carry through on that threat, and probably enjoy doing so as an exertion of their will over a being that's perceived to be as dangerous and powerful as Jabba.

8 hours ago, Luahk said:

The game, in my view, quite clearly expects you to play as the good guys or at least not all out darksiders.

I think the problem boils down to party cohesion . The rules could very easily be used (or at least modified) to play a group of dark siders. This would be fine if everyone in the group had the objective of being 'evil'. So if you were going to play a mixed group of Imperials, Sith lords and inquisitors, no problem, the system will allow for this. In this case you could really just flip the destiny point thing on it head (players using dark side pips) and probably rethink some of the conflict awards, the trouble might be slipping to the light:)

The big problem, the one that the book tries to head-off, is when a darksider wants to play along side a group of 'heros'. If the darksider wants to play a villain, then this can quickly devolve in player vs player destruction, which FFG admittedly states this system is not designed for neither in spirit nor mechanically. So I think this is the crux of the problem. If you want to play a mix of good and evil players, then there needs to be some sort of social contract that the players have some higher cause in common. This also necessitates that the mechanics work in a common way with common theme.

Anyways, I think that this is the core of the problem that you face. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple solution 'but understanding the problem is half the battle' - Go Joe!

VadersMarchKazoo brings up a very good point.

The internet is littered with stories of RPG campaigns that have imploded/exploded/crashed/etc due to one or more players acting like playing an "evil" character gives them carte blanche to act like raging d-bags to the rest of the party, and then handwave it away with the lame excuse of "I'm evil!"

For an instance in Star Wars lore of an "evil" dark sider working with a group of heroes, you can look no further than Darth Scourge, companion character to the generally heroic Hero of Tython character from Star Wars: The Old Republic. The guy is a Sith Lord, and yet is able to find common cause with a bunch of "do-gooders" while generally not screwing them over for the evlulz.

Looking at a few other BioWare titles, you've got evil-aligned traveling companions, such as Canderous Ordo in KOTOR 1 and 2 as well as Morrigan and Sten in Dragon Age: Origins. HK-47 doesn't really count as he's a droid and his programming requires him to be loyal to the PC, so he doesn't really have the option to screw you over in the KOTOR games. But with the meatbag examples, in all three cases they stick with a nobler-than-noble PC (even if they take opportunities to mock or belittle your squeaky-clean goodness) because there is a larger, far more pressing threat that if not dealt with is gonna make life suck for everyone.

Sadly, not every gaming group is going to set out to have the sort of social contract that VMK notes would be helpful, and even then sadly there are going to players that get their jollies from griefing the rest of the party and will ignore said contract, even if it results in their expulsion from the group. Given that Star Wars is generally about heroes, or at least people doing heroic things when it counts, the fact that FFG made it possible to play dark siders without overwhelming penalties (D6 and Saga Edition by RAW disallowed dark siders, as falling to the dark side meant the character became an NPC, while OCR/RCR hit you with ability score drain once you went over Wisdom score) is quite a step forward in terms of allowing the possibility of dark side PCs without overly crippling them.

The social contract thing is sort of what we operate under.

But the individualistic nature of the darkside is part of the issue. The very nature of our characters means that the direction they should be heading in makes us frequently head towards PVP and that's fine. We generally just flip the mechanic of destiny points and I, as GM, play the goodies. That's fine.

The conflict aspect might seem like you can just flip it but it doesn't come off that way very often. Darkside options for lightside players are constantly tempting. Taking the easier route. But since the Darkside players take the easier killing all the hutt's palace guards option by default it comes up infrequently and only when someone says
"For the sake of the Empire -" is it challenged at all.
Which I try to put as an underlying option frequently but the PCs desire to put themselves in harms way for that objective is far more limited. Which is not fine for the sake of this discussion.
As a result they do not have the same average detraction as they did when they were playing jedi. When they were I could put moral conundrums in place all the time and it'd dramatically lead to IC and OOC conversations about if this was 'right' but since we now play Sith the conversation just becomes is this 'effective' no one considers right/wrong as even though we don't have any truly 'evil' characters yet everyone is already very objective in their thought processes and does not want to display weakness to the others in party.

If you play with Morality and Obligation, you can make those 'quick and easy" dark side approaches have attached Obligation costs. These should always be something the players choose, not assigned post hoc as a punishment.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

If you play with Morality and Obligation, you can make those 'quick and easy" dark side approaches have attached Obligation costs. These should always be something the players choose, not assigned post hoc as a punishment.

Have you played as a group of darksiders? Or at least imperial players?
The point i'm making overall is that the darkside is meant to tempt and redemption is meant to not be easily found. Making getting people back up the scale or encouraging them to do so without a consistent catalyst for that change is difficult. Mechanically I have not found this a simple task. On the assumption that you have..how did you manage this?

4 hours ago, Luahk said:

Have you played as a group of darksiders? Or at least imperial players?
The point i'm making overall is that the darkside is meant to tempt and redemption is meant to not be easily found. Making getting people back up the scale or encouraging them to do so without a consistent catalyst for that change is difficult. Mechanically I have not found this a simple task. On the assumption that you have..how did you manage this?

Under this system, I have only run a dark side group during playtest (about 16 hours with with those characters). Morality was used, but redemption was not sought.

I'm suggesting Obligation as a way to temper behaviors that might cause group implosion, whether dark siders are present or not. Characters taking the high road might at least be making choices that help them fulfill/reduce Obligation, while being on the path of the jackhole might have some pre-advertised Obligation to go with the quick and convenient way.

13 hours ago, Luahk said:

As a result they do not have the same average detraction as they did when they were playing jedi. When they were I could put moral conundrums in place all the time and it'd dramatically lead to IC and OOC conversations about if this was 'right' but since we now play Sith the conversation just becomes is this 'effective' no one considers right/wrong as even though we don't have any truly 'evil' characters yet everyone is already very objective in their thought processes and does not want to display weakness to the others in party.

This sounds tough. It seems like it would be difficult to manage the morality portion if everyone has simply committed to being murder hobos. It might be too late for your group, but the best villains are those who believe they are the heroes of their own story . They simply don't see themselves as the bad guys or even 'evil'. Even the Sith may not consider themselves 'evil' but rather have decided that the Jedi are too restrictive or narrow minded and therefore bound to fail. But it doesn't mean that the Sith PCs need to be mustache twirling evil guys. If they 'believe' they are the good guys but still do things that 'are necessary' then maybe you can simply continue to use the conflict mechanism as written, but of course they will probably continue to slip deeper into the dark. Also, your players may know they are 'evil' but their PCs may not.

If your players just want to be murder hobos then maybe the battle between light and dark isn't a necessary theme in your campaign? I mean, if they don't seek to be moral and they don't seek redemption, then why use a system called Morality? Maybe just use obligation to drive story and just use Morality as a a barometer for how dark they are.

On 10/10/2018 at 8:50 AM, penpenpen said:

So you character just happened to drop below 30 morality, despite not really going out of their way to do evil stuff, but maybe just spending a little too many dark side pips. Now dark side pips are their standard force power fuel, and as such, regardless of why they're used, Conflict will start adding up at quite an accelerated rate. You character is still not doing evil stuff as such. He's generally quite a nice guy (or at least not terrible), despite his morality plunging down through the single digits.

My first question is how is this even happening? I'm genuinely curious, given the common opinion of the mechanics is that a "basically good guy" wouldn't actually see their morality "plunging" as you describe it. That the "Paragon Creep" would likely kick in, if they aren't actively trying to do bad things. And that's simply because the system does tend to lean that way, for someone who isn't trying to be a jerk. Sure you might have a drop now and then, but in the example you've given, I'd assume the opposite would be the actual outcome. That they would find themselves Morality 80+.

On 10/10/2018 at 8:50 AM, penpenpen said:

How would you approach this from an in-game role-playing perspective? Should the GM act a bit as the devil on his shoulder, encouraging him to give into his darker emotions? As he flips a destiny point to the dark side each session, maybe take that and run with it describe his dark side use as, if not malevolent, just wrong, perverting the natural order of things?

It really depends on what the player actually wants from their PC's story. If they want to play a darksider, or perhaps someone who falls, and is redeemed, then I would just have a talk with them, to make sure you were both on the same page, about how this fundamental change would be reflected in gameplay, and go from their. If they are playing someone who is still actually conflicted (no pun intended), and is actively trying to resist any lure of the Dark Side, I would probably suggest what I personally do for my own characters, when they are in situations that could go either way, based on dramatic tension and stimulus. I roll Discipline at an Average difficulty (Hard if it's something that directly applies to their Moral Strength/Weakness characteristics), and see what the results are. If I personally, as the player, come down 50/50 on how my PC should go with a moral choice, then that's what I do. Now, this isn't some RAW I'm referring to, this is simply my personal mechanic to make the story choice going forward.

Does my PC lash out in anger at this person who is torturing innocent people (thus triggering his Rage Weakness that's tied to Justice Strength), or does he find some other way to deal with it, that doesn't involving giving into his darker urges? That kind of thing. I don't suggest this for EVERY moral choice, as that could bog down a session, but for the BIG choices, the ones that would have dramatic musical accompaniment in a film, and I personally am of equal mind on either choice to be made , that's what I do. You could just as easily flip a coin, but I like the idea of using Discipline, as that does give an in-universe justification for it, as well as allow me the opportunity to improve the characters chance to stay on the good path, by investing more in that skill. To learn from past mistakes and show that my newfound discipline and insight, has given me a greater chance to resist the urge to repeat my past mistake of killing an entire village of sand people, when I find myself contemplating a room of younglings (to cite a film example). *shrugs* That's just my personal take on how to do that.

Again, this all depends on what the player is hoping to play out.

On 10/10/2018 at 8:50 AM, penpenpen said:

Maybe a character shouldn't be able to cross to the dark side without really "earning it" through his actions, instead ending up stuck at 30?

What are your thoughts?

Personally, as the GM, I would probably have them float at 31 until they did a "point of no return" type of action. Especially if they are the "basically a good guy" that you cited above(still don't know how someone like that would find themselves at 30 Morality though )

To give a film comparison, Anakin doesn't truly "Go Dark" until he decides to kill Mace Windu for his own selfish ends (to keep Palpatine alive to learn how to save Padme). Some might argue that him killing Dooku is his "Going Dark" moment, but to me that's more the action that brought him up to that threshold, and it's the later murder of Mace (where it's purely for selfish reasons, not potentially 'justified' as an action during the war). I'd do this just in case the player isn't actually trying to go Dark, and would like a chance to pull it out of the fire. It would kind of be a "Are you sure you want to Renegade For Life? This is your last warning" and then if the player says yes, then they have made that choice, and will live with the consequences.

I personally don't like the idea of Going Dark without some fundamental act to push you over that edge. Sure the "road to heck is paved with good intentions" can get you to that edge (little morality drops over time), but that final big change, I think should have dramatic weight. If only for the reason of making for a more memorable gaming experience with your friends.

7 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

It might be too late for your group, but the best villains are those who believe they are the heroes of their own story . They simply don't see themselves as the bad guys or even 'evil'. Even the Sith may not consider themselves 'evil' but rather have decided that the Jedi are too restrictive or narrow minded and therefore bound to fail.

If your players just want to be murder hobos then maybe the battle between light and dark isn't a necessary theme in your campaign? I mean, if they don't seek to be moral and they don't seek redemption, then why use a system called Morality? Maybe just use obligation to drive story and just use Morality as a a barometer for how dark they are.

As established. I am in agreement with with that sentiment and my previous post about my PCs simply having fewer and fewer lines that they will not cross is in line with them not being 'evil' just very willing to get the job done.

They aren't 'murder hobos' lol you guys with these ******* sayings get me. It's just that I want something that challenges them the sameway it does for the light sided folk. So far all I can do is push them in a way that the Imperials are quite aware that they'll be seen as expendable and so they don't like them and it has building consequences narratively and in leadership checks.

2 hours ago, Luahk said:

It's just that I want something that challenges them the sameway it does for the light sided folk.

That's where there's going to be a problem. You really shouldn't be trying to challenge them through Morality in the same way a light sided folks. That's like making adventures where the challenge is avoiding exposure to a plague and the party is made up entirely of droids.