Yes. Though I mean that in the sense of "why a paladin and not a fighter/cleric multi-class?" I got the sense that Logan wasn't a fan of "gameplay mechanics for dark side vs. light side" at all, much less for them a character having a "dark side alignment" mechanic tied to roleplaying.

As a GM who is trying to explore the light and dark sides being two halves of the same whole, I really like the EoE dark side mechanic. There's a lot of encouragement to tap the dark side when you only have two Force Dice, and the rules for it are simple and elegant. A small price to pay in flipping a Destiny point, a little penalty from the universe for doing it the 'quick and easy' way. But no clumsy 'alignment' stuff.

I don't ever intend to enforce dark side mechanics beyond that; it's ideal for what I'm trying to achieve.

Well I don't think having a jedi career means you are playing a jedi every time. The jedi career is just a name, something recognizable. What you actually are is determined by you, the player. I think they can do named careers and still have a "commitment" mechanic which allows you follow the Jedi Path or the Imperial Knights. Even if FFG has named careers like guardian or consular, I don't think they'll tie mechanics to them.

Well I don't think having a jedi career means you are playing a jedi every time.

... then why have Jedi specializations at all? Serious question, and "because fans expect it" is not enough of an answer in my book. (I don't specify Jedi careers here in order to acknowledge and allow for the character concept of the "birth-trained", even if it has me rolling my eyes.)

That, and as Maelora said, the pre-existing dark side rules are enough in my book to preclude anything else.

Why have bounty hunter? Or soundrel? Or any other career? Because they chose to use recognizable forms for the career/spec character creation process. They could have done generic careers for everything, but they chose to use iconic names for them. Much like they chose to set their game around the original trilogy because it is the most popular aspect of Star Wars, so they will continue to use names for careers that are recognizable. Personally I don't think they will necessarily go with jedi as a career. I think they will use the guardian/consular/sentinal route that has been expanded on so much. But who knows, maybe they'll surprise me.

Why have bounty hunter? Or soundrel? Or any other career?

But to be fair, 'bounty hunter' and 'hired gun' are pretty generic. They fit many character concepts.

While 'Jedi' is pretty specific. And already feels limiting, because the other careers haven't looked like this. There's no realy difference between an Empire or Alliance 'Commander;' or 'Soldier' in terms of stats, nothing in the AOR book ties your character to the Alliance, except 'Duty'. A 'Politico' need not actually have been a career politician, nor does an 'Outlaw Tech' actually need to be a criminal in-game.

I must admit, I've no idea what they will do - while personally I like the Guardian/Consular/Sentinel thing, I known many don't, and going with more generic titles would fit with what they've done thus far.

They could have just as easily gone with generic titles like mercenary, law enforcement or rogues. Bounty hunter and scoundrel evoke certain images as regards the Star Wars universe. I think they will continue to do so.

They did go with Mercenary, with the Mercenary Soldier tree. Bounty Hunters are very different from mercenaries.

Good points Donovan, but what is murder? I've had players define killing in self defense as murder and then others view cutting off limbs as a dark side act. Thats the grey area I was referring to. If the Force has personal opinions on what these are awesome, but I have yet to see anything that comes close to a definitive rule.

"the more the player tries to justify why their action shouldn't warrant a DSP, the more they deserve that DSP." Great idea, I'm going to have to keep that in mind for future games.

I'd call "murder" as being any action that deliberately results in the death of another sentient being, especially if that sentient being was at your mercy.

Killing a thug that's actively trying to bash your brains in? That wouldn't be deemed "murder" in most instances, but while it's still a dark action, but not one that mechanically would result in a DSP.

Using the Force to strangle someone that has just surrendered to you and is at your mercy? That's totally murder, and full warranting a DSP.

Shooting an Imperial officer in the head stop him from hitting the alarm that will jeopardize the entire mission? Still fails into murder, but may not be worth a DSP.

Using the Force to strangle that same Imperial officer? Again, fails into the realm of murder, but is definitely worth a DSP since you've used the Force to cause direct harm to a living being that wasn't directly trying to end your life.

For reference, here's the "Cliff's Notes" version of Sarli's 5 Questions:

The 5 Questions for assigning a DSP (Yes/No answers only)

1) Did the Action Harm a Living, Sentient Character?

2) Did the Action Harm a Character at your Mercy? (Helpless, Unable to Meaningfully Defend Itself, etc.)

3) Did the Action Cause Serious Harm to a Character? (Physically, Mentally, or Emotionally)

4) Was the Action Unnecessary to Protect Yourself or Another Character from an Immediate, Obvious Threat?

5) Was the Action Deliberate and the Result Intended?

• If the answer to all 5 is “Yes” – that’s almost certainly a blatantly evil act. (Murder, torture, slavery, etc.)

• If the answer to exactly 1 question is “No” – it’s probably questionably evil. (Killing someone who’s at your mercy, but in defense of others…)

• If exactly 2 question are “No” – it’s probably a dubiously evil act. (Killing in self-defense; recklessly, but accidentally, hurting others…)

• If 3 or more are “No” – it’s probably not a transgression at all.

I've been using this since it got posted on WotC's website a few years back, and it's worked wonderfully.

Well I don't think having a jedi career means you are playing a jedi every time. The jedi career is just a name, something recognizable. What you actually are is determined by you, the player. I think they can do named careers and still have a "commitment" mechanic which allows you follow the Jedi Path or the Imperial Knights. Even if FFG has named careers like guardian or consular, I don't think they'll tie mechanics to them.

This point got brought up in the WotC versions as well, especially due to them making use of Jedi as a class. It was often noted that while certain NPCs (such as Sith Lords) might have levels in a Jedi class, that did not mean they were ever Jedi, only that they'd had training similar to that of a Jedi; for instance, Darth Maul whom was noted as "being trained in the Jedi arts" by Qui-Gon Jinn during his debriefing with the Jedi Council.

In regards to my mentor idea, I feel that it is something integral to the star wars stories. Who would Luke be without the mentoring roles if Kenobi and Yoda? Even Anakin looked to Palpatine as a mentoring role.

Unless this game is nothing but middle aged Jedi in hiding or untrained padawan survivors in hiding (the latter of which suites the force sensitive exile to a tee), characters learning to be a Jedi or other tradition need to learn it from someone. Or something. A mentor need not be a who, but a what. Perhaps a Jedi holocron can fit the bill. Or a stone tablet from dathomir.

The problem with mentor-types in any RPG is that you either have to account for the PCs constantly going back to where that mentor hangs their hat, or try to justify why the mentor just sits on their butt and lets the PCs make fools of themselves, particularly if the adventure is one where the stakes for failure are catastrophic. Could you imagine Obi-Wan just telling Luke, "okay, head off to Mos Eisley, hire a transport to Alderaan and get those two droids into the Rebellion's hands. I'll just sit back here and chill."

Also, in Star Wars films the mentor figures weren't lasting characters; there's a reason the trope of the mentor figure who dies to make way for the hero is known as the Obi-Wan. And there's also the matter of FFG designing this particular rulebook to mesh with the framework of a Rebellion Era campaign, where the typical mentor-student relationship that the Jedi Order had simply doesn't exist due to the severe lack of surviving Jedi; most training is likely a crash-course in the basics similar to what Luke got in ESB, and the only thing Yoda did for Luke in RotJ (aside from dying on him) was inform the boy that his training was done and that the burden of defeating Vader and the Emperor now lay squarely on Luke's shoulders.

As for a dark side tracking system, a lot of folks balked at the Obligation mechanic when it was first introduced, but it's since come to be an enjoyed part of the overall system by quite a few folks, as it provides a tangible hook for the PC and gives them a sense of personal history and connection to the larger galaxy.

Personally, I'd be quite fine with the notion of avoiding/succumbing to Dark Side temptation to be a purely role-playing thing, and is in fact the approach I took in regards to the Dark Side Acolyte and Jedi Initiate specializations I wrote up as part of my "Ways of the Force" fan supplement, with the former having a sidebar that provides signposts for when to consider a PC to have fallen or been consumed by the Dark Side, and the later the advice to avoid converting those Dark Side pips simply because a Jedi is trained not to rely or really even call upon the Dark Side in the first place.

But sadly, there have been a plethora of horror stories (take some of Logan Ambrose's recent posts in this thread for example) where players have sought to abuse the rules and avoid the penalties for their actions, so some form of mechanical check/balance is probably going to be needed; otherwise, we're going to end up with yet another rash of "Jedi are broken, they're destroying my game!" threads/posts/complaints that happened with Saga Edition, happened with RCR and OCR, and probably would have happened with D6 had message boards as we know them today existed back then. That's not to say that a GM such as Maelora couldn't just ignore it for the purposes of the game she's running, but then a large chunk of the rules could just be ignored by a GM if they believe said rules get in the way of the players having fun. I'm just saying that it's likely to be in there, in spite of what an overly vocal minority (and let's face it, that's precisely what the folks on this forum are, a minority) might say.

There are a lot of "might" and "may" in you explanation Donovan, which is exactly my point. What you "might" consider a dark side action I might not because it's all perspective. Even your five questions don't really help.

The 5 Questions for assigning a DSP (Yes/No answers only)

1) Did the Action Harm a Living, Sentient Character?

*harm is rather broad, Jedi harm living creatures all the time on some level*

2) Did the Action Harm a Character at your Mercy? (Helpless, Unable to Meaningfully Defend Itself, etc.)

*again this is personal perception and hard to define in the instant of combat*

3) Did the Action Cause Serious Harm to a Character? (Physically, Mentally, or Emotionally)

*there is that harm word again*

4) Was the Action Unnecessary to Protect Yourself or Another Character from an Immediate, Obvious Threat?

*unnessary depends on if your looking at the tactical level or the strategic level. What seems unnessary for one may be nessesary for the other*

5) Was the Action Deliberate and the Result Intended?

*given that half the result is under the players control and the other half is GM territory this seems unfair to the player as the GM can produce any result they want*

So yeah, too grey for my liking. General guidelines on how to RP a Jedi I'm ok with but dark side points for RP desisions I'm not. Why would this system even need to exist? Just because previous systems used certan mechanics dosent mean FFG should repeat those design flaws.

If a player is using a dark side point you could really mess things up for him. Give him some strain because of the worry and concern caused by using the dark side.

If the act seems terrible make the use of destiny higher than normal. You probably should narrate this into the action before the dice are rolled. But there is no reason you cant make terrible acts cost some extra.

Also, if you have a player that is happy to use destiny points all over the place don't use any as the GM or start using them against the other players in the party. I think over time the other players will notice that they are put in much more danger when the "fallen jedi" is with them, and start to distance themselves.

I think the game mechanics can and do quite readily play into the narrative and slowly cause the player of the "fallen jedi" problems. You can also throw out physical changes, and perhaps if the player is becoming extreme make the changes similarly extreme. Why couldn't you suggest that the players brawn decreases by 1 as his deformed and now frail body seethes with dark power.

You could also slip the darksider notes in social situations. For example, the party is dealing with a long-time contact who they have a friendly relationship with. You slip the dark side player notes throughout the exchange about how they look shifty, or seem like they're about to get aggressive, or can't be trusted. Put things out there that alter their perceptions over how things actually are.

There are a lot of "might" and "may" in you explanation Donovan, which is exactly my point. What you "might" consider a dark side action I might not because it's all perspective. Even your five questions don't really help.

The 5 Questions for assigning a DSP (Yes/No answers only)

1) Did the Action Harm a Living, Sentient Character?

*harm is rather broad, Jedi harm living creatures all the time on some level*

2) Did the Action Harm a Character at your Mercy? (Helpless, Unable to Meaningfully Defend Itself, etc.)

*again this is personal perception and hard to define in the instant of combat*

3) Did the Action Cause Serious Harm to a Character? (Physically, Mentally, or Emotionally)

*there is that harm word again*

4) Was the Action Unnecessary to Protect Yourself or Another Character from an Immediate, Obvious Threat?

*unnessary depends on if your looking at the tactical level or the strategic level. What seems unnessary for one may be nessesary for the other*

5) Was the Action Deliberate and the Result Intended?

*given that half the result is under the players control and the other half is GM territory this seems unfair to the player as the GM can produce any result they want*

So yeah, too grey for my liking. General guidelines on how to RP a Jedi I'm ok with but dark side points for RP desisions I'm not. Why would this system even need to exist? Just because previous systems used certan mechanics dosent mean FFG should repeat those design flaws.

The questions may be broad and open to interpretation, but if every single question, or even just most, are coming up as yes, then it's probably a dark action.

As for why a system should exist to begin with, the dark side of the force and it's ability to corrupt individuals is a huge part of the lore. It's no less fitting than having systems for Obligation or Duty.

But obligation and duty don't have an action by action penalty. Yeah if you cross the wrong hutt your going to end up with a bounty obligation but it's in the background and has little direct effect on your character until they are rolled. If that's the system FFG uses then I will be all for it because every step the Jedi takes wont be watched like a hawk for dark side actions.

As for the list, what is "harm"? If I punch someone in the chest that is harm. If I stab someone in the chest that too is harm, therefore on the same level as a punch in the chest. That's the interpration issues I was talking about. One person is going to try to throw around DSP every time a Jedi steps on a bug where another person will let them go buck wild with their lightsaber. That's a bit extreme but my point is the same. By the way, how many DSP would Luke have gotten for killing hundreds of innocents aboard the first death star? Not counting the wound from such a sudden loss of life in the Force, and the cataclysmic destruction the debri would have caused to Yavin.

I'm not going to play a Jedi to try to mediate and broker peace with the empire, I'm going to play a Jedi so I can swing a lightsaber and throw people around with the Force! And there is NOTHING wrong with that

I'm not going to play a Jedi to try to mediate and broker peace with the empire, I'm going to play a Jedi so I can swing a lightsaber and throw people around with the Force! And there is NOTHING wrong with that

Well, there's something wrong with it for certain gametypes. FFG's RPGs are rather low-key, where your characters are assumed to be actively trying to avoid direct confrontation, though naturally we as players love getting into conflict and it's been designed to be fun when we do.

Don't get me wrong: When I play RPGs I'm attracted to the same things that visually excite me in films and video games. But I want my lightsaber duels to be like Luke vs Vader (either time) than anything-no, everything-from the prequel trilogy, or the Force Unleashed.

I'm not going to play a Jedi to try to mediate and broker peace with the empire, I'm going to play a Jedi so I can swing a lightsaber and throw people around with the Force! And there is NOTHING wrong with that

Except that you'd be a classic example of "lightsaber syndrome" or "a thug with a glowing sword and psychic powers" as opposed to actually being a Jedi as they've been portrayed in the films.

When playing a Jedi (an actual Jedi, and not just the afore-mentioned "thug with a glowing sword and psychic powers") a fandom rule of thumb has been "What Would Obi-Wan Do?" as he's generally been presented as the model of what an actual Jedi Knight should be. The character you're describing is more along the lines of Anakin Skywalker, and look where that approach ultimately got him.

Frankly, adjudicating what is and is not a Dark Side transgression is something that you as a GM are going to have to man up about it. Again, see my line about "the more justification the player tries to provide as to why an action wasn't worth a DSP, the more they deserve it." Or in line with the 5 Questions I posted, the more the player tries to justify why the answer should be No, the more compelling argument they are giving for the answer to instead be Yes.

If all you want be is that thug with a lightsaber and Force powers, all the tools to play that character are already present without having to wait for Force & Destiny. Under the current Force system, your character can be as much of a capricious **** as you the player can manage/stomach, and can call upon the dark side to fuel your powers without any consequence aside from a measly amount of Strain and flipping a Destiny Point. The only house rule needed is the GM's approval for a Lightsaber skill, which you'd buy at the non-career rate. Everything else is already in place.

But obligation and duty don't have an action by action penalty. Yeah if you cross the wrong hutt your going to end up with a bounty obligation but it's in the background and has little direct effect on your character until they are rolled. If that's the system FFG uses then I will be all for it because every step the Jedi takes wont be watched like a hawk for dark side actions.

As for the list, what is "harm"? If I punch someone in the chest that is harm. If I stab someone in the chest that too is harm, therefore on the same level as a punch in the chest. That's the interpration issues I was talking about. One person is going to try to throw around DSP every time a Jedi steps on a bug where another person will let them go buck wild with their lightsaber. That's a bit extreme but my point is the same. By the way, how many DSP would Luke have gotten for killing hundreds of innocents aboard the first death star? Not counting the wound from such a sudden loss of life in the Force, and the cataclysmic destruction the debri would have caused to Yavin.

I'm not going to play a Jedi to try to mediate and broker peace with the empire, I'm going to play a Jedi so I can swing a lightsaber and throw people around with the Force! And there is NOTHING wrong with that

I totally get your point, but I think there should be some kind of system. And by that I mean there will be, Fantasy Flight has already said the will repercussions for abusing the dark side.

Now, you can feel free to ignore said system, as the rules are only guidelines, it's all about what each group of players feels most comfortable with.

If all you want be is that thug with a lightsaber and Force powers, all the tools to play that character are already present without having to wait for Force & Destiny. Under the current Force system, your character can be as much of a capricious **** as you the player can manage/stomach, and can call upon the dark side to fuel your powers without any consequence aside from a measly amount of Strain and flipping a Destiny Point. The only house rule needed is the GM's approval for a Lightsaber skill, which you'd buy at the non-career rate. Everything else is already in place.

Funny thing is, this is now more or less exactly the right way to stat "the Force" in my book, to hell with any Jedi or Sith career or specializations at all. Thanks!

Lightsaber syndrome LOL! That was the most rediculous idea ever, more proof of D20 putting Jedi on a pedistal. I don't see a block next to the diplomat that says "you have a lot of social skills but if you want to make a blaster slinging diplomat, perhapse you should just play a tactician". That is rediculous! You play a career for what it brings to the table. Doctors are great with a med pack and down time healing, Jedi will be great with their lightsaber. FFG has ignored D20 and WEG so far, why should this be any different?

As I have said before, this is the wild west of Jedi. No peers, no code, no council, so what it's going to boil down to is decent people (Luke, Kyle, ect) getting a lightsaber and learning the force and following their own moral code to right the wrongs of the galaxy. So these "thugs with lightsabers" are going to stand for the weak, protect the innocent, and save lives. These "capricious" individuals are going to hold the line so others can escape, fight the enemy on all fronts, and sacrifice themselves to ensure any and all of these goals are met. But I understand your point, let's leave the heroics to the Mandalorians

I think my point has been missed with the DSP though. I don't want it gone, I want something new. I want something like obligation and duty that is in the background and not modified every encounter as every step you take is looked at by the group under a microscope. Not because I want to weasel out of falling to the dark side but because I don't want to suffer because I'm not solving problems the way the GM thinks I should. I hope they keep a falling to the dark side mechanic, I just want it to be something that isn't so detracting from the story.

The only house rule needed is the GM's approval for a Lightsaber skill, which you'd buy at the non-career rate.

That's where Well Rounded can be a big help. I've seen an Edge Colonist (Scholar) that's studied Jedi and the Clone Wars use Well Rounded to make Knowledge (Warfare) and Lightsaber into career skills.

@ Logan Ambrose: The issue seems to be more of the idea of an "objective" alignment of light side/dark side (in terms of "the Force") with certain behaviors in a way that doesn't necessarily match with our take on good and bad...

(Amusingly, and probably a tangent, I'm left thinking of people who actually became more sympathetic to the Empire after watching the prequels simply because they found the prequel-period Jedi that repugnant... and I'm not talking about Traviss, since she basically just inverted the "good" and "evil" with her designated good being even more hilariously repugnant... which really should tell you what I think of her take on Mandalorian "culture"... as does the fact that I just put that word in quotation marks.)

Though, there might be something to this "lightsaber syndrome". I have a player in my group that clutches to his blaster rifle like a safety blanket going so far to use it every time trouble starts. He must have "blaster rifle syndrome"

PCs often use force far more often than our real world sensibilities would suggest is appropriate. So do the heroes we see on the screen.