"bad guys" or "Bad Guys"? That is the question. I don't see any problem with running an Imperial campaign. Sure, the Empire are the "bad guys" of Star Wars, but they are not all evil. The game is slanted towards having the Empire be the opposition, but this could be overcome by any group willing to do a bit of work. I would love to see an Empire Sourcebook, possibly including guidelines for playing as Imperials, or at least further detailing the opposition.

Playing "Bad Guys" on the other hand means playing drug dealers, serial murderers, terrorists, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, child molesters, etc. Why would anyone want to play them? And who would want to play with them? Seriously. I don't think such a campaign would be enjoyable or long lasting. At least not for mature players.

I like pulling out this whenever I see " good guys and bad guys "...

From what we've seen of Age of Rebellion just about everything you may need mechanically to play a (basic) Imperial campaign is there. While there's definitely room for some sort of Imperial supplement it seems to mainly be for roleplaying guidelines, how to tweak bits like Duty for Imperial players, maybe some additional gear or gear rules (such as every stormtrooper's helmet having a MFTAS and all the intricacies of stormtrooper armor -- as opposed to it merely being laminate armor in EotE, but I find this least necessary due to the sheer depth already found in EotE and AoR), but most importantly what I'd want to see and what would most justify an Imperial supplement to me: plot hooks .

As for your take on bad guys... it's not that far off from the WEG stance on the Empire and assorted fringer criminals...

I don't understand the "good guy - bad guy" debate. At what point is someone considered a 'bad guy'? The only 'line' between good and evil should be what they (the GM) is comfortable with game play from the players. Should a role playing game be an exercise in anti-social behavior where all the PCs do is **** and pillage? Depends on your game style.

I like to think that every PC, much like those of us in the real world, are a shade of grey. Depending on which side you are on determines what/who you think is moral.

Are the Emperor, Grand Moff Tarkin, and Darth Vader evil? Probably.

Is the Empire evil? Maybe, but most people in the Empire probably aren't.

Did the Emperor have good intentions wishing to unify the galaxy under one banner instilling order and control which produced safety and reduced war? Possibly, regardless of intent that is what happened. More security for less freedom.

Is the Rebel Alliance the 'good guys'? They like to think so, but to the average citizen of the Empire they might be the villains.

The Hutt Cartel opposes the Empire in most situations, are they 'good guys' as well? I doubt it, most of them are probably more selfish than anything.

Selfishness is it an evil trait? Depends on your perspective. This goes along the lines of: 'should you steal to avoid starvation? Is making money to pay for your own needs, and those of your family at the expense of other people legal or not: moral? If you save a life then it continues on to do evil deeds, was the original act of saving a good or an evil act?' These are similar questions the great philosophers have been asking for centuries. They are questions one must ask themselves, personally when presented with those situations. A good story often explores the idea of morality through the characters. And I think that is one of the great things about role playing games, we have the opportunity to get together in groups of other individuals and play out imaginary scenarios where these questions could be asked, and it's up to each player to respond and answer those questions in their own way.

I could relate them to real world forces, but I'll refrain from making those references to avoid sparking an intense debate about personal politics.

Remember a Jedi Master once said, " You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. " It all goes back to personal morality and tastes. Does intent shape morality or are the results what matter? Is doing evil things for good purposes, evil? These are questions you must answer for yourself. Point of view varies greatly on whether or not your PCs are good or evil. Sure there are inherently 'evil' acts, especially with the backdrop of The Force which has a definable 'good' and 'bad' side to it.

If the Jedi and Sith are the examples of light side and dark side, then all passion should be considered a dark force, whether or not that passion is to help people or hurt people. Anakin turned to the dark side to save the person he loved the most. Luke stayed on the light side because he didn't want to be like his father, not from a place of high morality to do good. Revan turned from light side to the dark side and back to light side; to save the galaxy from itself.

Personally as a GM I enjoy a more gray area when it comes to PC morality. There are some things we as a group are not comfortable with: **** being among the more unacceptable topics. But in games past my players have shown they are not above torture and cold blooded murder to get what they want, even to further the plot. I reward characters for doing good deeds, and there are repercussions for nefarious deeds. Yet in some situations there are times where gains are easily attainable by doing less than noble deeds.

As for the original topic; I don't see a need to release even a splat book/pdf on how to play an Imperial. It's already been said above, playing an Imperial is flavor and narrative , mechanically no different than playing the material as is. Playing a dark force user is different only by which pips you use on the force die. Hopefully this will be expanded upon in the upcoming books by adding more force powers. I would love to see some permanent effects of using dark force powers. Personally I was considering allowing my PCs to have the choice to use dark side pips, and instead of using up destiny points and strain, they take a critical injury, reflecting the abuse their bodies take from using dark side force, but I am still toying with this idea.

One idea I've got out of Edge of the Empire for an Imperial campaign would be to encourage particular Motivations, such as Power, Fame or Status as Ambition-type Motivations, Support the Empire as a Cause-type Motivation, or Comrades or Mentor as Relationships-type Motivations.

Interestingly, the GSA review (as opposed to the "first look") of the Age of Rebellion beta book mentions that Ambition, Causes and Relationships from Edge of the Empire are seamlessly usable -- despite that book's "assumption that you're Rebels", one example given by the reviewer (I'm guessing not the book) is " an AoR character having an Ambition to amass personal power".

Interestingly, the GSA review (as opposed to the "first look") of the Age of Rebellion beta book mentions that Ambition, Causes and Relationships from Edge of the Empire are seamlessly usable -- despite that book's "assumption that you're Rebels", one example given by the reviewer (I'm guessing not the book) is " an AoR character having an Ambition to amass personal power".

Yep, that one's mine.

I've done a few character builds that mixed & matched elements from EotE and AoR, such as a Mon Cal Colonist/Doctor and a Twi'lek Commander/Tactician. And they've worked out quite well. And since Motivation is a purely role-playing driven thing, I can't see any GM having an issue with crossing those particular streams, especially as the books both encourage the players to concoct their own Motivations if the ones offered don't fit their character concept.

I'm also toying with a house rule to allow AoR characters to take a 5 point Obligation at character creation to give them either a little extra XP or some extra starting credits, which is particularly handy if the group doesn't choose the "base of operations" option for their Rebellion Resource (AoR's replacement of EotE's starting transport as Step 10 of Character Creation).

While I have yet to see the particular motivations added in the beta book beyond the GSA breakdown into Beliefs, Connections and Quests, it's clear as well to me that if not all, then at least many of the "specific duties" mentioned in the GSA first look could also be mirror-flipped, while the rest could simply be tweaked.

For example, a Rebel player with a Resource Acquisition Duty would benefit from "Finding the material and equipment needed to continue the Alliance’s war effort by whatever means necessary", but in turn an Imperial player's Duty could be "Resource Denial/Protection": denial of resources to the enemy, and keeping up the Empire's own logistical advantage by protecting civilian and Imperial shipping lanes against Rebel "pirates".

There's actually some interesting bits in some of the WEG books about the Imperial Navy having made its name on suppressing pirates, with some seeing the recent turn to "showy" items like the Star Destroyers (and in turn a doctrine of overwhelming force concentrated on Star Destroyers) as an unwelcome diversion from that 'fundamental' anti-piracy mission, and the Imperial Customs Office having had to step in for day-to-day patrol and counter-piracy. Even in the context of EotE, there's room for players to be participating on the Imperial side in "political-aligned" piracy/privateering conflict.