Things like 'Mass Effect' inform the themes of my games as much as the original movies, because I like nuance and shades of grey. That said, I want the Alliance to retain its status as the 'good guys' as much as possible, and that they are actually trying to fight a 'just war'. Partly because High Command are mostly high-minded, honourable individuals, and partly because that stuff wins hearts & minds, something the Empire under the Tarkin Doctrine is remarkably poor at doing.

But still, sometimes bad stuff is going to happen. Even in conflicts like WW2, the Allies sometimes did bad things (there are plenty of films about this). Every war has its atrocities. The challenge for the Alliance (and my players ) is to win a guerrilla war against superior opposition without losing themselves in the process and becoming what they hate.

So with that in mind, what kind of situations could be used to enforce that? And the general Star Wars rule that the darker choices are 'easier and quicker' but eventually come back to bite you in the ass?

And generally enforcing the whole concept of 'war is hell' and sometimes it's possible to lose oneself in combat, even in a just war.

These are a few I thought of - anyone have any others?

a) the players must decide between saving some intel that could greatly benefit the cause.... or a colony of innocent people who wouldn't...

b) the players have to neutralise an Imperial leader, but it will be easier to do so if they do it in public (where bystanders will be hurt) or by blowing up his shuttle (with his family in it).

c) They have to rescue a captured Rebel prisoner who has vitally important intel, and under torture, he's starting to crack. It might be harder to rescue him than just bump him off, even if that means killing a friend.

d) Conversely, an imperial prisoner has vital intel, but he's not telling. The Alliance forbids torture, but this info could turn the tide of the war. Will they put the thumbscrews to him?

e) A once-loyal Rebel has gone terrorist after he loses his family, he's become a serial killer who is murdering anyone even vaguely associated with the Empire. Will they try and appeal to the man he once was, or just kill him and bury the pieces?

Any suggestions gratefully accepted...

From Babylon 5 (and I guess WW2 really... the reference is changed for narrative impact in the series; based on the Coventry Blitz): Let the operatives as a result of much work (a session or two worth of work), decode an encrypted imperial transmission and gain intel on a raid on an alliance base, or some civilian population, or other high priority target that the operatives would have incentives to defend (but it might not be a vital strategic part of the alliance), but then make it clear that if they act on this information the Empire will know that their security has been breached, from where (possibly who) the information came, and that any further attempts to gain intel from that (and similar) sources will fail, the work on new informants and stuff like that will have to start all over again, months if not years of work will be ruined if they act on this information. See what they do

Have the players raid and steal an imperial shipment. They find out later that the shipment was emergency medical supplies for a plague that without supplies killed thousands (or more). The deaths make the imperials look bad, but it was all innocents.

Another thing to consider is the organization of the rebel alliance - different rebel cells working to overthrow the empire. These could be anything from former separatist to those he just want to watch the galaxy burn. These other groups could use varying degrees of unsavoury tactics. At the same time make groups that are idealistic and only use stun or disabling and minimal loss of life tactics.

Another thing to consider is the organization of the rebel alliance - different rebel cells working to overthrow the empire. These could be anything from former separatist to those he just want to watch the galaxy burn. These other groups could use varying degrees of unsavoury tactics. At the same time make groups that are idealistic and only use stun or disabling and minimal loss of life tactics.

This is exactly what I was thinking of. Sure, the Alliance leadership (Mon Mothma, Leia Organa, the military members of Alliance High Command) would be fighting a very traditional sort of war: attack military targets, imperialized industries that contribute to the imperial war effort, and the Imperial intelligence community. For them, collateral damage would probably be acceptable with a big enough target (as in real-world targeting assessments), but civilians would not be intentionally targeted. This would include both actual Navy SEAL commando-type missions as well as covert infiltration and sabotage, turning imperial agents into double agents, propaganda, etc.

Compare this to any number of cells who have felt the oppression of the Empire keenly on their worlds. Particularly post-0BBY Alderaanians, who would learn that (probably) billions of innocents were killed in an instant. I don't think it's a stretch for people exposed to those conditions to be more fast-and-loose with harming loyalist Imperial citizens: Alderaan's citizenry was wholly murdered without mercy, so who cares if more loyals get caught in the crossfire? The numbers will never balance out after all.

I also don't know how well Alliance Command would screen new recruits. It's entirely possible for some swaths of the Rebellion to be like the current Syrian Opposition: not considering themselves subject to overarching leadership or even having the same long-term goals beyond "topple the regime," and that attracts all sorts of people, from idealists who play by the book to warmongering profiteers looking to carve something out for themselves or just to fight.

How about the PCs receiving orders from a superior that they KNOW to be immoral? Executing prisoners, allowing civilians to die or actually causing civilian death, an assassination mission (or, perhaps if your group has little qualms with assassination of evil dictators, an assassination against a pro-Imperial but otherwise kind & benevolent governor, simply to install a Rebellion sympathizer in his place). Their choice would be between breaking the chain of command, perhaps against someone they admire/respect; or allowing innocent beings to suffer.

It depends on the level of maturity your group is ok with of course, but there are tons of ideas out there.

1) have the Players generate a few of their own NPC's as assistants/contacts. use them in dramatic situations.

2) tread carefully with this one, but have them "liberate" a colony world only to find that the colony actually worships the Emperor. Have the local population be afraid of them.

3) the team is tasked with delivering an unspecified compund into the drinking supply of an Imperial academy. What they (and Intel) didn't know is that the compound intended to cause lethargy mixes with chemicals already there to induce paralysis and death.

Another thing to consider is the organization of the rebel alliance - different rebel cells working to overthrow the empire. These could be anything from former separatist to those he just want to watch the galaxy burn. These other groups could use varying degrees of unsavoury tactics. At the same time make groups that are idealistic and only use stun or disabling and minimal loss of life tactics.

Really, the Rebel Alliance, circa 1-2 BBY, is two very different organizations, one feeding the other.

One is the network of cells - some of which in the EU are terrorists, some just spies, others paramilitary operatives taking on nail missions† and special operations.

The other is the Alliance proper. It's got a couple worlds in open rebellion against the empire, and a military. It's a full up opposition government in all ways... and Alderaan was NOT part of the "Visible Rebellion" even tho it was becoming readily apparent (based upon a mix of C & S canon) that Alderaan was a rebel sympathizer government. Much like Naboo was sliding into Separatist sympathies (G, T).

† Nail mission: "for want of a nail, the show was lost, for want of the shoe, the horse was lost" - a mission nabbing some important item that has higher than obvious consequences. The bunker team on Endor are a nail mission in the effort against Death Star II

An idea taken from my one of games -

A PC encountered the Imperial general responsible for ordering the deaths of his family and wife; The general was known for his history of extreme ruthlessness and lack of mercy, and had been caught after a vicious and furious firefight that captured an Imperial garrison... but a large number of Alliance troops died doing so. The general had been placed with a bunch of captured, innocent, noncombatant Imperial technicians - the PC encountered him just as an NPC Alliance lieutenant, furious at the loss of his men, was about to order the entire lot of them executed via firing squad.

... I was pleasantly surprised to see the PC step in and directly countermand the firing order, then repeat the order once the lieutenant argued with him about the need for the General to at least die as punishment for his crimes (the Lt. was considering drawing his pistol and firing anyways, but the PC stared him down). The PC then delivered a short speech to the Lt. and his troops about the ideals of the Alliance, the need to ensure they did not stoop to the Imperials' level, and that the general would be made to stand trial for his actions.

The PC DID shoot the General (on stun) and ordered him taken away for interrogation, while ordering the rest of the Imperials to be taken captives and treated properly.

iirc, one of WEG's plot hooks went something like this -

An Imperial Official is causing serious problems for the Rebellion in his area of control - to the point where "Something Needs To Be Done". Unfortunately, an investigation into the official reveals that he (or she) is actually a good and decent man who is unable to see just how bad the Imperial system is (perhaps like Mara Jade in the novels set in the Empire-era; she knows that there are lots of bad people in the system, but is blind to the fact that the problems go all the way up to the Emperor) and has also managed to work within the system without compromising his integrity.

How about one of your players encounters an Imperial Officer who catches them by surprise but instead of capturing them they instead chat to them attempting to discover why they're a rebel and what they consider right and wrong with the PC having the same chance to ask the same.

Provided that player is up for it, this could reveal the Officer is more interested in dealing with true threats not just to the Empire but also the local populace and is willing to exchange intel in return for her opposite number (the PC) helping her thwart the escalating terrorist antics of their respective allies.

What would you do if you learnt the npc leader of the local rebel group has goaded the Empire into sealing off a several kilometre long underground rail transit network letting them think they're using one or two of the abandoned or disused service terminals sealing in the still in use trains filled with civilians whom they're planning to gas along with any rebels still inside?

I really wish I read this thread properly the first time round deleted the below because I finally got to reread and realised the other messages handled what had been below better!

After playing Knights of the Old Republic, I'd question the morality of the Jedi before I questioned what the Alliance does. I think partially because its pretty much assumed that they are not the 'pure' resistance movement some might like to pretend that they are. The Jedi's morality took a huge hit for me however when I realized that they didn't really give a **** about the Old Republic. When the Mandalorians began their massacre of the Republic, what did they do? Cower in their ivory towers and forbid the republic from taking any semblance of action at the cost of hundreds of thousands (possibly even millions) of innocent lives.

Now, that's not to say Revan was entirely in the right. After all, later the preview movies for ToR talk about Revan's initial venture into unknown space where he was corrupted by the Emperor. However Revan's realization that the Republic needed to be saved by the ignorance of the council was well founded by recent events. I think if Revan had turned around and removed the Jedi from power on his own, we would have most certainly been strongly backed by popular support and the Republic due to his status as a hero.

Thus the idea of Revan's motives, while for the good of all the Republic, were driven by the Emperor's corruption instead of his heart. Even Emperor Palipatine made a excellent point when he stated to Anakin (very loose paraphrase) that the force must be studied in its entirety, not simply one facet of it. Thus I think between the 'holier-than-thou' ignorance and complacency of the Jedi and the cruel evil of the Sith, the very rare (but existant) Grey Jedi (and even the Revanites to minor extent) is the most moral path.

Going back to Rebels vs Imperials though, I think while we see in the movies and books a stark contrast of good and evil, I think (based on historical and current president) the reality would be that they are different solely in ideology. But that you'll find many of the same practices of abductions, assassinations, torture (or otherwise drug-induced interrogation), open retaliation against supporters of the other faction (much like resistance groups did to those claimed to be Nazi sympathizers/collaborators after WWII), etc.

A resistance campaign leaves plenty of room for moral dilemmas even if the opposing sides are clearly split between good and evil. The sheer imbalance of power between the Empire and the Rebellion, and the Empire's ruthlessness (in the EU, the Empire doesn't really show a softer or more sympathetic side until Pellaon becomes its de facto Emperor) will likely force the players to decide what their characters would be willing to sacrifice. If Imperial Intelligence starts to target the PCs' friends and family, or the Imperial Army takes hostages from the local population and threatens to execute five or ten for every Imperial soldier killed (a common real-life practice, especially in German-occupied territory during the Second World War), even the most squeaky-clean band of resisters will have to make a hard choice between withdrawing from the fight and/or retreating to a different theatre of conflict- which leaves the Empire free to commit atrocities on that particular city/region/planet etc. without anyone able to stop them- or continue the struggle and bear responsibility for the deaths of innocents, perhaps innocents they personally loved.

You could even look at relatively "petty crimes" that are used to get the Alliance's day-to-day operations running... why stop at "Rebel smugglers" when you could be "Rebel bank robbers"? No, seriously.

You could even look at relatively "petty crimes" that are used to get the Alliance's day-to-day operations running... why stop at "Rebel smugglers" when you could be "Rebel bank robbers"? No, seriously.

In that one, the setting pretty much rules it out. Star Wars is mostly electronic currencies. Bank Robbery requires the bank to have something hard to trace, readily portable, and valuable to be worth grabbing.

A bank in the era of Eps 1-6 isn't likely to have a lot of cash on hand, as most people don't use it.

The best equivalent is to divert funds by hacking ... but then you need to be able to use those funds, which still means smuggling the booty.

A successful bank heist in setting looks more like "Wall Street" rather than "Firefly"- you find the ID hash for your "non-identity-linked credstick," skim 0.05% off every transaction, keyed to deposit to that credstick next time it connects. You have someone else (a different kid each time) go connect it weekly. You pay them with local coins, and make certain you've not left prints on them.

Because you're simply adding a tiny transfer fee, most won't notice. Because you're sending it to a "cash" stick, and adding regular small amounts, it's not going to ping the alarm. And in a busy bank with lots of debit activity, the value can be way higher than the actual cash and coin on hand.

Once you have enough, you buy mundane stuff that you can trade nearby for legit creds... on a different cred stick. Then use that to buy legal things for trading elsewhere, and put those on a third, non-ID-linked, credstick. Which you hand off to your QM, who then procures the real supplies with..

I've been thinking this over for a bit now. The Alliance obviously is formed by splinter groups being drawn together under 3 Imperial Senators, Mon Mothma, Bail Organna, and Garm bel Iblis. So the Alliance is rally state characters defending their own freedom and rights that the Imperial government as a whole are trying to suppress. Now the Imperials as a whole are not evil, but their leadership certainly is. Not the original book and the movies do not necessarily tell the same story. According to Star Wars the book Senator Palpatine was ambitious and got himself elected to President and he did declare himself Emperor. the stories diverge after that. According to the book the Emperor promises to reunite the disaffected and restore the Republic to its former glory. His assistants closed him away from the masses and end up controlling him, and the cries of the people never reached his ears.

Another difference is Anakin Skywalker was a actually a farmer on Tatooine along with Owen Lars and left that life to follow Obi Wan Kenobi on "some ****-fool idealistic crusade".

So the alliance is a moral organization but which canon are you following. 99% are probably going to follow the movies, but the books bring some great angles to the storyline.

Supplies need to be obtained and not everything can be obtained on the up and up...

Interesting that bank robbery could still be a heist but on a much different level, plausible deniability allows a rebel sympathiser to hide their shipment runs behind acts of piracy they have nothing to do with... well that's if the Empire isn't already firmly in control of covering such shipment runs let alone the spies on both sides warring over whatever scarps of intel they need to pull one over their opposite.

Imagine an actual bank robbery on a world where electronic currency still needs to be carted around by a handler with a sizable detachment of guards maybe even storm troopers... how would your group handle the change over if its a simple ruse to hide the hand over or failing that how do they deal with actually robbing them and the inevitable pursuit afterwards?

Hmmm... I'd say one of the keys to a Star Wars "bank robbery" per se would to 'maintain' the value of whatever electronic currency is stolen (that is, the physical chips used) to prevent it from being simply rendered inert/useless remotely, i.e. ensuring that the physical chips still have value (and not just for the possibility of hacking to return whatever values might be forced onto a 'blank' chip)... unless you're aiming to steal whatever is supposed to be "backing" that currency.

( Here 's seemingly current canon re: the economy... no hint as to just what's involved in the currency, i.e. whether it's fiat currency , so while there's only one currency in EotE/AoR for simplicity's sake that doesn't help in determining whether bank robberies were actually a thing in the Star Wars universe -- at least, at "galactic" institutions such as Imperial-backed banks -- as opposed to planetary banks, and therefore a 'canon-plausible' option for the PCs to go about.)

I'm envisioning a fun campaign where the PCs are a Rebellion 'Internal Affairs' team that goes in and tries to minimize the damage done by more extreme 'members' of the Alliance, sometimes by cutting off the head of the problem if necessary.

That one's an interesting one, because does that count only 'actual' Alliance members or anti-Imperial factions that weren't part of the Alliance such as the Justice Action Network ? ( Note : Apparently in the case of Sector Forces that became a perceived liability, the Alliance "central command" was more partial to simply cutting them off and letting them be attrited by the Empire than directly trying to "cut off the head of the problem".)

Sorry it's long.

Personally, I haven’t really thought of this too much, but now that you mention it I see where it has come up in my games. I’m kind of surprised though because it is something that seems I would have actually considered as a combat vet irl.

I started my campaign about a year prior to the death star blowing up. The rebellion is around but not really a big deal. The Imps are aware of them (the rebels) however they are more an annoyance then anything else.

When I started the EtoE campaign my goal was to let them move in the direction their characters pulled them in, but to present the universe as it was, Imps were Imps. The players were slowly taking on the roles of rebels, inadvertently. The group is 80% aliens, and when I ran the Imperial check points I would let them “have it”. I’d also have them stumble upon the Imps in the midst of their dirty works. Bombarding planets, enslaving aliens, murdering/purging/genocide. I got a lot of the inspiration from Nazi Germany. The characters, being “the jews”, didn’t much care for the Empire and began opposing it of their own accord.

That said, having started with EtoE, in Beta, the characters have a bit of experience under their belts, and I was able to learn a lot about them from their Outer Rim adventures. They had already come across some questionable ordeals with the Hutt cartels, and the Black Suns, etc... so I kind of had a feel for where they stood. For instance, they wouldn’t transport slaves for the cartels. No ifs ands or buts. They absolutely refused!

When I introduced them to their first “real” rebels, they were hired as a driving team (taxi service), easy money. They were to pick up 5 people from an Imp Bank on Coro, and transport to wherever the passengers wanted to go. As they drove away, in the mirrors, they witnessed the bank implode and topple- 9-11 style. They then became aware that they were the “get-away” car for a terrorist action against the Imps.

At this point I left it up to them. They could have turned in the terrorists, dropped them off to fend for themselves (the money they were being paid wasn’t that great), or any number of other alternatives. What they did was to haul backside and gear up for a shoot out with the security forces that began following them (due to the crazy driving). They escaped and dropped off the passengers where instructed.

After the fact they did discuss (as a group) what took place, but they were not all torn up about it.

As to “good guys/bad guys”, it’s war. The morality of it changes dependant on what side of it you’re on. One nations terrorists, is another nations freedom fighters. We tend to see the good guys as the rebels, we have a inside look at things, but most of the populations of humans, tended to see the Imps as the good guys. At least while they were being force fed the “news” with the Imp spin on things.

It is war, and I don't tend to pull punches in that. Not always are those people the “bad guys”, but the party (and the rebellion) try to minimize the non-com causalities, but they understand that it happens.

The only way that a force as small as the early rebellion, is going to take out the much larger force is through questionable tactics. They have to ensure that each of theirs is capable of taking out several of the opposition before they fall, and that requires dirty fighting. It’s usually the side that is fighting with “rules”, that loses the war.

I’m not saying all rebels were thugs and psychos, and certainly don’t play them as such, but one must note that the media (movies/books/cartoons) at most come with a PG(13) rating, more often PG and that has a lot to do with what is actually seen/heard in the war. Don’t kid yourself; the rebels had assassins, Special Forces teams, demolitions, mass destruction weapons, etc… And innocents die. I don’t know that it can be avoided and the points of war being hell, be driven in. It can be implied, like the books/movies do, but if you have a group of adults playing then heck, make it war.

Of course, if your group is comprised of a younger audiance then ignore all the above.

Hope it helps…

One situation I have been toying with putting on my crew (haven’t yet), was having a sniper laying in the middle of a field, with small, alien, younglings sitting on him. I believe it spells out the psychology of war rather well as it makes shooting back a reality check. It's a common tactic in more recent warzones as these peoples know it throws the opposing troops through a loop. It will be interesting to see what my crew makes of it.

Where is the line drawn? Do the ends justify the means?

The Alliance is pretty desperate and can use all the help they can get. Do they enlist the services of pirates to raid commercial shipping for parts? Do they permit (or even support?) an illegal drug trade to increase their funding? Do they trade favors with ruffians and bandits for extra muscle in a firefight? In a certain light they can be worse than the empire, because they might permit these things out of desperation under the white banner of being the good guys. Just how far is too far with the alliance?

The Imperial leadership may be evil but the Empire has the backging of legality. Not everyone in the Empire appears to be evil and corrupt, and there's a small blurb in EoE's manual about a section of the Empire resisting "Imperial infallability" in legal circles, suggesting some Imperial officers are concerned with enforcement of justice in their realm even over protecting the Empire's name. To these individuals the Rebels could be considered reckless terrorists who, more often than not, throw tantrums and cause damage regardless of collateral.

If I end up GMing sessions I don't intend to paint the Rebellion in a totally positive light. There will be positive characters, but they and the PCs will have to defend the good name of the Rebellion against those who practice and permit "moral shortcuts" in the alliance to get the easier result. Being good takes effort.

If I end up GMing sessions I don't intend to paint the Rebellion in a totally positive light. There will be positive characters, but they and the PCs will have to defend the good name of the Rebellion against those who practice and permit "moral shortcuts" in the alliance to get the easier result. Being good takes effort.

Good - because no large organization is wholly any particular thing. They all exist along spectrums.

I do likewise.

I'm actually having our EotE characters bumping up against a faction of Rebels that are doing some less then moral things. The Rebel Alliance has a lot of independent cells, and some are going to be more ruthless/less moral then others. Our heroes are currently being hard core hunted by the Empire, but are leery about asking for aid from the Rebel Alliance because their experiences with them haven't been stellar.

...I don't intend to paint the Rebellion in a totally positive light. There will be positive characters, but they and the PCs will have to defend the good name of the Rebellion against those who practice and permit "moral shortcuts" in the alliance to get the easier result. Being good takes effort.

This. In abundance .