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"

-EF

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.

I'd say the same about them and blasters too...

Funny thing is, my idea for an "Infinities" campaign revolved around the idea of Luke Skywalker as a Nemesis, cut off from Obi-Wan's Force ghost after Yavin, in severe distress after himself feeling the deaths he caused after the medal ceremony, and going this route that you described... with a rather skewed idea of what "Jedi" meant...

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 point that's going right over your head is that the Force DOES NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE CODE OF MORALITY!!!

It operates in black and white, with anyone thinking there are "shades of grey" the can work within having been proven wrong. The biggest proponent for a "grey mentality" was Jacen Solo after undergoing tutelage by Vergere (herself later revealed to have been a failed Sith apprentice) and look how he ended up. Whether these so-called "Jedi" have peers or not, the Force is still a thing, and it's black and white in terms of what is good or evil, no matter how much you or any other player tries to metagame it. As the old adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you don't have to look much further than Anakin Skywalker to see proof of that in the Star Wars universe.

The only people in the Star Wars universe that routinely operate in the "shades of grey" in the Star Wars EU are those that aren't sensitive to the Force in the first place. Even Mara Jade admitted that what she did during her time of service as Emperor's Hand was pretty **** dark, and only slightly mitigated by her keeping the violence limited to her missions as much as possible and only to those she was directly ordered to kill or those that were actively trying to kill her. But never shied away or tried to excuse those acts as anything other than murder.

Frankly, I'm taking HappyDaze's advise where you're concerned, as you've proven you've nothing of merit to add to any of these discussions other than you and your group are power-gaming twinks.

Over in a different thread, poster Simon Fix suggested that as EotE's Obligation = PC's past and AoR's Duty = PC's present, that the main new mechanic for F&D would be linked to the PC's future. It makes quite a lot of sense, and gives weight to the idea of said mechanic being called "Destiny" more than anything else, and there is plenty of precedent for a Force-user's Destiny being a very important thing, even being referenced far more often in the films than the idea of a commitment to a given belief structure. In that sense, Commitment might work better as a form of Motivation, while a Destiny represents a path that your PC is either moving towards or against.

To draw from the films. Anakin spent much of the years between RotS and RotJ moving against his Destiny to destroy the Sith and thus bring balance to the Force, while Luke spent the original films generally moving towards his Destiny of redeeming his father (although not even he was fully aware of that destiny until the very end, with he and everyone else in the know thinking it was to destroy Vader and the Emperor... which you could say he did, from a certain point of view). Destiny could also be applied to the non-Force-user folks as well, with Leia having a Destiny to lead the Rebellion to victory, or Obi-Wan to train both Skywalker boys (he botched the first attempt due to lack of experience, but did much better the second time around as a mentor figure).

Moving towards one's Destiny would be similar to accomplishing one's Duty in AoR, in that it would increase based on the actions the PC takes that line up with that Destiny. Moving against that Destiny would be the same as ignoring one's Obligation for too long, and could actually lead to the PC's Destiny score actually dropping from neglect, but like Obligation never totally goes away; for all the evil he did as Vader, Anakin still had his Destiny.

As for what sort of benefit having one's Destiny triggered during a session might bring... that's a little tougher. I knocked the suggestion during the AoR Beta test period of having Duty provide a bonus to Strain Threshold, as that'd conflict with Obligation inflicting a penalty to the same, potentially leading to cases where the majority of the PCs don't experience any change as the bonus and penalty would offset each other. In that vein, I don't think Destiny would affect either Strain or Wound Threshold. Perhaps instead, the PC whose Destiny comes into play gets a free boost die to all their checks that session, while the other PCs simply treat each roll as if they'd scored one extra Advantage. Doubles on the roll might let the PC upgrade their checks by one, while the rest of the group then receives the boost die. Would be a potent way to reflect how someone as powerful as Vader was a bit hesitant when "the Force was with him" in regards to Kenobi on the Death Star (telling Tarkin to leave the old Jedi to him) and even when dealing with Luke the second time around in the Emperor's throne room on board the second Death Star. During their fight on Bespin, you could say Luke was moving against his Destiny to redeem his father. In fact, actively moving against the PC's Destiny might cause those prior bonuses to be wiped for the rest of that session. It'd be a good counter-balance to how powerful that suggested boon I listed would be (a free boost die is nothing to sneeze at, and a free upgrade even more so). In fact, Saga Edition had a pretty good mechanical basis to cover a PC acting towards or against their Destiny, though being a d20 system it was easier to come up with a negative consequence (generally a flat penalty to dice rolls).

Who get's to choose that destiny though? Does the GM choose and I just get to ride the campaign railroad? Does the player choose and the GM get's to re-write his campaign to fit an entire group worth of destinies?

Your interpretation of the force may be black and white. Anyone can play it as they see fit. Throwing a fit about it won't change anyones mind.

I've always thought of the force having a lot more to do with one's emotional state more than individual actions. It's very much still a black and white morality, but I think simply killing someone isn't what brings about the fall to the dark side. Instead it would be the reasons for the killing; anger, jealousy, cruelty, etc.

Who get's to choose that destiny though? Does the GM choose and I just get to ride the campaign railroad? Does the player choose and the GM get's to re-write his campaign to fit an entire group worth of destinies?

Much like choosing an Obligation or choosing a Duty, it'd be the players that would choose a general type of Destiny, and would then work with the GM to work out the specific details of that Destiny. WotC used that approach with how their Destiny mechanic, and it generally worked pretty well... provided the player and GM worked together in implementing that Destiny into the overall story.

As for the Force being black and white, I'd suggest taking a look at the huge body of lore that exists in regards to the Force. It's pretty clearly black and white as to what falls into the realm of good and what's evil. The problem that people in that setting have is when they try to enforce their own morality and self-justify why their evil actions are actually beneficial for everyone around them. The Sith at least are honest enough with themselves to accept that they're a collection of power-hungry jerks for whom an "ends justify the means" approach makes them evil. Palpatine practically reveled in being as much of an ass to the galaxy in general as possible, especially once he could drop the "kindly old politician" act that he'd had to maintain prior to his seizing control.

As noted, there is a huge amount of material, including comments by the very guy that created the franchise in the first place, making it pretty clear that in the Star Wars universe, the ends don't justify the means, that good and evil are pretty clearly defined. Folks may want grim-covered shades of grey, but that's generally what Star Wars, especially the movies, isn't about; Han is a very light shade of grey at most, while Boba Fett is a very, very dark shade of grey. One would have to have their head buried kilometers into the sand to not be able to realize that shades of grey really don't exist in the Star Wars setting.

Plus, Force-users have a lot more power available to them, particularly as they gain more and more experience, and with a setting that very much has a quasi-mystical energy that breaks down into good and evil, there's going to have to be some means to keep powergaming twinks that want to have all the power but none of the responsibility in check. Naturally, such a system could be jettisoned by GMs who don't want to bother with it, or perhaps like Maelora feel it would be at odds with the campaign they're running, but the same could be said for just about any rule system in the entire game, from Obligation and Duty to Wound and Strain Threshold and plenty else in between.

I've always thought of the force having a lot more to do with one's emotional state more than individual actions. It's very much still a black and white morality, but I think simply killing someone isn't what brings about the fall to the dark side. Instead it would be the reasons for the killing; anger, jealousy, cruelty, etc.

I believe that's what Vergere conveyed to Jacen Solo during the NJO saga, leading to him espousing a "unifying force" theory that there was no actual dark side, and that only the person's intent mattered, which itself was based off something referred to as the Potentium Heresy. That same line of thinking also lead to the splinter group of early Jedi that got exiled and eventually became the Sith. So yeah, not a good track record for the "it's your intent that matters, not the actions themselves." crowd.

That was proven to be quite inaccurate, leading Jacen to eventually become a Sith Lord and plunging the galaxy into yet another massive war while it was still recovering from the sheer horror that was the war with the Yuuzahn Vong. with a death count that was measured in some pretty astronomical numbers of lives... per day.

In regards to killing someone, either maliciously or in self-defense, the Jedi Order (and with the length of time they've existed and studied the Force, are pretty much the in-universe experts on the topic) had made note that doing so was still an act of darkness, one that strengthened the Dark Side, and so violence should be the means of last resort; the lightsaber only comes out when all other options have been exhausted and/or failed. Again, look to Obi-Wan. He didn't bust out the lightsaber when that guy tried to sell him death sticks (an obviously illegal action much like someone trying to peddle heroin or cocaine), but rather used a mind trick to get the guy to go away and "rethink his life." And he tried regular fast-talk to get past that stormtrooper checkpoint in Mos Eisley before employing a mind trick to get them through. The cantine scene had him draw down, but Evazan and Ponda Baba had already drawn blasters and made their intent to murder Luke (and Obi-Wan as well by that point) pretty **** clear. He also wasn't running around chopping up stormtroopers while sneaking about on the Death Star, in spite of the fact that in game terms he'd be more than badass enough to take on every stormtrooper in the place and wipe them out. He only drew his lightsaber as he got closer to the Falcon, likely sensing that Vader was nearby and a confrontation was probably inevitable; that he didn't ignite his lightsaber until after being confronted with Vader.

In game terms, killing someone that was actively trying to kill you wouldn't be an action worth a Dark Side Point, but it'd still be a dark act. Even the U.S. legal code notes such a thing as being "Justifiable Homicide" when applied to killing in self-defense; it's still homicide, but the circumstances prove that the person that committed the act of homicide really didn't have any viable options to really fall back on; despite what Hollywood would have you believe, shooting only to injure or incapacitate is quite difficult, and most shooters, particularly trained ones, are going to aim for the biggest center of mass on the human body, which also happens to be where all but one (the brain) of our vital organs are kept. Opinions might vary on whether the victim "had it coming," but under U.S. law, it's still homicide and thus still murder.

As for other types of harm, be it physical, mental, or emotional, the easiest way to address that is "was it really necessary to achieve your goals?" In a lot of cases, the answer's going to be no; there's a reason that most of the Jedi we see in action (particularly Kenobi) are fairly easy-going and try to work with a situation instead of causing one; take note of how Qui-Gon generally dealt with Boss Nass and Watto; he worked within the general structure of that situation instead of blatantly enforcing his will as the first thing to do; he was certainly willing to pay Watto for the parts needed, but he didn't have a currency that was worth much to work with, and even had the mind trick worked on Watto, Qui-Gon was still going to pay the guy for the parts needed. And with Boss Nass and the "we could use a transport?" bit, Qui-Gon left it open ended as to what sort of aid would be provided, and before that tried using diplomacy and reason to convince the Gungan leader to help them out..

That was why the Clone Wars was such a problem for the Jedi Order in terms of mindset and morality; the war forced them to become soldiers, and to consider darker solutions to problems than they'd otherwise have been comfortable with. Yoda himself notes this in RotS when the topic of having to forcibly remove Palpatine from the office of Supreme Chancellor is brought up, something that would have generally been unthinkable to the Jedi Council prior to the Clone Wars unless the Chancellor had proven to be a major threat to the Republic; it just so happened that Palps was a Sith Lord, though they didn't know that at the time. But after three years of a war they were never prepared to fight, such a course of action was deemed acceptable if Palpatine refused to honor his words at the start of the war and lay aside his emergency powers at the war's conclusion.

I just can't agree. There has to be shades of gray. Otherwise a Jedi would never be able to do anything.

You rescued the hostiges from the arena, but you killed several security guards, so here's your darkside points.

You saved the galaxy from the most terrying weapon ever but you killed millions when it blew up so welcome to the darkside.

Well, he's going to stop selling deathsticks and re-think his life, but you just stripped a sentient of his free will and forced him to do what you you wanted so here's your darkside point.

Because the ends don't justify the means and there is only pure light and pure dark right?

When it comes to all the material and examples, I only have six movies, an MMO, and the two knights games to build from, so I can't comment on the massive amounts of EU cannon. But I think that's a good thing because, from what I have gathered, a lot of those books were written simply to stroke someones favorite character/group/whatever fetish.

For what it's worth I'm not pushing for a grim and gritty shades of gray. I just want a game where I can play a hero without going to the darkside because I shot some badguys.

Four paragraphs before breaking out the powergaming twinks, are you feeling ok? Your off your game a little today.

So the deaths of tens of thousands on the Death Star is an evil act? There were plenty of non-combatants aboard that thing. Finding a way to disable its superlaser and hyperdrive would have been a far less harmful way of dealing with it that may have spared thousands of lives.

A dark act that likely caused a wound in the Force, but not an act that drove Luke closer to the dark side.

About the Death Star, particularly the first one, those aboard knew full well what the place was (a mobile weapon of unparallelled mass destruction), and those on board the second one knew what they were building, particularly given what the fist one was infamous for doing. Disabling the hyperdrive and or superlaser were short term solutions to the much larger problem. It'd be akin to disabling the engines on a live nuclear warhead; sure that missile's not going anyplace, but you've still got a live nuclear warhead to deal with. In the end, the Empire pushed the Alliance to the point they really didn't have any other options; the Death Star was already bearing down on Yavin, and had proven its destructive power by blowing up a world that didn't offer any degree of resistance.

But as an example of the Five Questions I posted earlier in the thread, let's take a look a Luke blowing up the Death Star in that light:

1) Did the action harm a sentient, living character?

Anyone that tries to justify this as a "No" needs their head examined.

2) Did the action harm a character that was at your mercy?

This one could be debated, as the Death Star did have active defense (weapon emplacements and enemy TIE fighters), so it hardly qualifies as helpless. I'm gonna call this one a "No" as it wasn't even remotely close to shooting fish in a barrel, and only the timely intervention of the Falcon kept Luke from being just another casualty.

3) Did the action cause serious harm to a character?

Same as #1, and equally as obvious.

4) Was the action unnecessary to protect yourself or another character?

Seeing as how the Death Star was mere moments away from blowing up Yavin 4, this is pretty clear a "No." Disabling the Death Star might have been a more peaceful option, but it simply wasn't practical in the time constraints given.

5) Was the action deliberate and the result intended?

Yes.

So, I've got three answers of "Yes" and two answers of "No." So in reference to Gary Sarli's JC #111 article, that puts Luke blowing up the Death Star as "dubiously evil (a minor transgression) and likely doesn't deserve increasing the character's Dark Side score." He then lists examples such as "killing in self-defense or recklessly (but accidentally) causing injury to others. Plus, after the initial rush of "I survived!" he probably did reflect on the fact that a lot of people died on that station, and while acknowledging that it was war, still felt a measure of guilt over it. In fact, in the EU it was because of having to make choices like that one that lead to Luke resigning his commission with the Alliance/New Republic, as it conflicted too much and too often with his adhering to the Jedi Code and what he believed/felt the Jedi should be.

As another example, let's take a look outside the Star Wars universe and at the DC Animated Universe, specifically the alternate universe incident where Superman kills Lex Luthor, which in turn leads to the Justice Lords.

1) Did the action harm a sentient, living character?

Seeing as how Batman remarked that he smelled something burning, most definitely a Yes.

2) Did the action harm a character that was at your mercy?

Before setting his eyes to Extra Crispy, Supes was holding Lex by the front of his suit with nary a sliver of Kryptonite in site, so again this will be a Yes.

3) Did the action cause serious harm to a character?

Yes.

4) Was the action unnecessary to protect yourself or another character?

Luthor was at Superman's mercy, but was about to set off a nuclear war, which was why the Justice League was there in the first place. While Superman had a plethora of means to disable Luthor that didn't result in President Flambe, the fact remained that Luthor was still a major threat to the world, so this one I'm going to mark as a "No."

5) Was the action deliberate and the result intended?

Yes.

So with four Yes answers and a single No, the survey says: The action is "questionably evil" (a moderate transgression) and deserves increasing the character's Dark Side score by one, with examples noted as tormenting a droid to extract information (droids are sentient) or starting an unnecessary fight that results in serious injury (possibly even someone else's death). Number 4 could have just as easily been answered as Yes (the guy's got secondary powers that qualify as primary powers for some characters, he certainly had other ways of dealing with Luthor), changing the result to the action to "blatantly evil" (a major transgression), and a definite increase in the character's Dark Side score, with similar examples given being murder, torture (including deliberate mutilation or maiming), slavery, and pretty much any similar act that most modern civilizations would label as reprehensible. Any way you slice it, this was not the sort of thing that DC's biggest paragon of good should have even considered doing.

And as one final example, let's consider the original version Han vs. Greedo (aka Han Shoots First):

1) Did the action harm a sentient, living character?

Yes. How smart Greedo was is beside the point, but he did count as sentient and living when he sat down across from Han.

2) Did the action harm a character that was at your mercy?

This one's a tad tricky at first, but since Greedo was armed and pointing a blaster directly at Han, and made it clear he was ready to kill Solo, I'm gonna put this as a No.

3) Did the action cause serious harm to a character?

Yes.

4) Was the action unnecessary to protect yourself or another character?

Greedo had a weapon drawn and made it clear he was ready to kill Han on the spot. Not like Han had a lot of options as he'd already tried talking and Greedo was having none of that.

5) Was the action deliberate and the result intended?

Yes.

So for Han, it's the same verdict as Luke blowing up the Death Star, and falls under "acting in self defense."

Han could just as easily have stunned and disarmed Greedy; his use of lethal force was a deliberate and unnecessary act.

My point from the get go HappyDaze. Because the Force as a plot point must be interpreted by the GM, his perception may be different from that of his players. This causes conflict as actions a player takes may not seem like dark side actions to him but the GM or someone else at the table. There are a lot of Jedi in the EU, each with their own interprations of the force. As everyone following this thread can see, differences in view on this subject can and will cause conflict.

Power gaming twink? Never been called that before. Perhapse I should better define my situation. I am GM for a group comprised entirely of females (my daughter, wife, and her sister). Any female players on this forum will back me when I say that they play for the story and the feels. One of my players wants to eventuly play a Jedi shadow, basically a Jedi assassin. She has tried such a character in saga with another group and GM and was forced to play her character the way the GM thought she should under the guidance of "what would obi-wan do?". Killing an unarmed, sleeping man is a dark side act to some no matter how much justice would be served.

That is the root of my argument. Heroes come in all shapes and forms and trying to uphold some type of DSP system tracker can interfere with someone else's enjoyment for the sake of inflicting stereotypes. Once again, there is nothing wrong with wanting to use a lightsaber and throw people around with the Force as a champion of good and defender of the galaxy

Sounds kinda like a dark Jedi to me. At least grey.

Something to note, having a dark side mechanic is different that being punished for using the dark side. Even in Saga losing control of your character was an optional rule.

Darth Vader murdered little kids in the name of bringing peace to the galaxy. Episode 3 was weird.

No worse than Mara Jade and she was granted the rank of master.

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!

I actually feel that way too. For our game, I'm kind of reading 'light side' as Lawful rather than Good, and 'dark side' as Chaotic rather than evil. Light side is discipline, control, reason; dark side is passion, emotion, 'anger is an energy'.

In AoR, our Emergents are soldiers in a war. They make an effort to minimize casualties and stay moral, but killing and sabotage is simply a necessity in a war. As for EoE, our Exile is a self-taught maverick on the run, hunted by a repressive and intolerant government. She's actually one of the few PCs who cares about 'the little guy' , but morality becomes a bit less important when you're a hunted outcast and the blaster fire is flying. (But yes, if the Force-Sensitives start being casual in their killing, it will come around to bite them on the ass, and they know this!)

But that said, I see where Donovan is coming from. I'm lucky to have good players who consider the consequences of their actions, but I've seen too many 'jedi' ignore the spiritual aspect of SW and the Force and just become 'thugs with lightsabers'.

But I don't see how a clunky alignment system would really help. I think it's something best left to the GM.

We are on the same page Maelora. I've never had to deal with the "thugs with lightsabers" problem because like you my players get what it means to be Jedi and I peremate the story with the shamanistic aspects of the force.

Yeah no alignment system. Just a paragraph about how the player should modify their roleplaying to fit the road they are taking.

For those of you that haven't had to deal with the "thugs with lighsabers" problem, lucky you.

Sadly, there have been a large number of games that have gotten derailed because the GM refused or simply wasn't able to reign the players that abused the rules on Force-users. I've played in games that have gotten totally derailed because of one jackass player that decided his moral code (or what passed for it) trumped the Will of the Force, or even the ability for the rest of the group to have fun. It's because of those types of types of players that I've adopted such a hardlline stance on when Dark Side Points should or shouldn't be assigned.

A classic example of the sort of abuse if there isn't some kind of dark side system in place and being actively enforced can be heard in the later part of the first season of the Real Gamers, which detailed a Saga Edition game. The culprit was playing a character with Jedi levels that abused the heck out of Saga Edition's Dark Side score mechanic, spending Force Points that he'd lose from leveling up to reduce his Dark Side score in "atonement," but go right back to doing the things that earned him those Dark Side points in the first place, specifically spamming Dark Side powers and then metagaming "well, I can use Force Lightning this many more times before I hit my Wisdom score in Dark Side points..." The campaign was coming to a close, so the feeling was the GM and players just let him get away with it for those final sessions, but imagine if he'd been acting that way since the start of the campaign.

Or in perspective of this system, you handed a starting PC a heavy blaster rifle with a fully modified forearm grip, a fully modified weapon sling, the superior quality, and a free rank of Jury-Rigged to buy the Auto-fire cost down to 1 Advantage to activate.

As I said in a similar thread, while it doesn't need to be the primary mechanic of Force & Destiny, there does need to be something to encourage would-be powergamers to toe the line and keep with the general theme of FFG's games that the PCs, if not outright heroes, aren't a bunch of psychotic murder-hobos. If the GM is lucky enough that they don't need to worry about their players turning into rejects from Force Unleashed, they can choose to suspend or ignore such a rule if they choose.

But again, there is over a quarter century of horror stories of Force-users running rampant over games even if there has been some kind of Dark Side tracker (mostly as the GM allowed the problem players too much wiggle room). I've been on enough Star Wars RPG forums to have seen and read a lot of these from players and GMs across the globe and having to do with every prior Star Wars RPG, from D6 to Saga Edition, and even to EotE/AoR over concerns of PCs drawing too frequently on the dark side by converting those Dark Side pips into usable Force Points. Whether Logan wants to stick his head in the sand and just play "thugs with fancy sword & powers" or Maelora simply decides that such a thing will conflict with the story she wants to tell with her group, the fact remains the problem exists for a lot of other players and GMs, so something is going to need to be done to address the issue.

Just the fact of Logan's attempts to try and weasel out of "what is harm?" proves that something concrete needs to be done. I really wish that wasn't the case, but there are too many players with the same mindset as Logan that it's pretty much going to be required once the floodgates are opened and the option to play truly powerful Force-users comes into play.

I just can't agree. There has to be shades of gray. Otherwise a Jedi would never be able to do anything.

You rescued the hostiges from the arena, but you killed several security guards, so here's your darkside points.

You saved the galaxy from the most terrying weapon ever but you killed millions when it blew up so welcome to the darkside.

Well, he's going to stop selling deathsticks and re-think his life, but you just stripped a sentient of his free will and forced him to do what you you wanted so here's your darkside point.

Because the ends don't justify the means and there is only pure light and pure dark right?

When it comes to all the material and examples, I only have six movies, an MMO, and the two knights games to build from, so I can't comment on the massive amounts of EU cannon. But I think that's a good thing because, from what I have gathered, a lot of those books were written simply to stroke someones favorite character/group/whatever fetish.

For what it's worth I'm not pushing for a grim and gritty shades of gray. I just want a game where I can play a hero without going to the darkside because I shot some badguys.

Take a look at my later post regarding the implentation of the Five Questions. To go buy Obi-Wans' quotes, the Jedi don't deal in absolutes, but that doesn't prevent them from trying to stick to the moral high ground whenever possible, but accept that sometimes they need to perform actions that are less-than-pure in order to accomplish their primary goal of guardians of peace and justice. But they don't just dismiss those actions as "I did what I had to do, no big deal." They reflect on those choices and wonder "what could i have done differently to avoid that particularly outcome should a similar situation crop up again?" The Jedi himself knows that they screwed up somewhere along the line if they had to resort to inflicting serious harm or taking a life. The fact that Anakin didn't do this, instead justifying his actions is a big part of what lead to his fall to the dark side; had it not been for the Clone Wars and the need for such an exceptional Jedi on the front lines, the Order probably would have promoted him to Jedi Knight, and likely would have booted him out of the order for being a failure in terms of what a Jedi should be.

I also address the "Luke blows up the Death Star" in light of those Five Questions, and while it's questionable (a lot of people lost their lives because of it), such an action wouldn't turn Luke to the Dark Side.

Just the fact of Logan's attempts to try and weasel out of "what is harm?" proves that something concrete needs to be done. I really wish that wasn't the case, but there are too many players with the same mindset as Logan that it's pretty much going to be required once the floodgates are opened and the option to play truly powerful Force-users comes into play.

Yeah because thats what I was trying to do. If you can't handle Jedi in your game then just don't use them, but I happen to collect a higher caliber of player who want more out of the game than a clone of Obi-wan.

The point I was trying to make (and you keep missing) Is that words like "might" and "harm" are in their nature vague. The world is not black and white and nether are plots. All I was asking for was more leeway in how people play Jedi and less "I don't think Obi-wan would have handled it exactly that way so you get a dark side point....oh you want to argue? Now you definitely get one"

Jedi don't need to be wangled, controlled or otherwise hindered in this system as in the grand scheme of things they are not that powerful. There are inherent weaknesses in place to allow non-Jedi to work along side them. which is as it should be, great job FFG!

I never played d6, but in the d20 version Jedi (and force users) were better than non force users. Everyone wanted to not be overshadowed. There had to be a way ti reign in players. Hence darkside tracking. Along the lines we get darkside corruption - something that we don't truly see in the movies.

The way the system is, with equal experience, a forcy any a non forcy character will be equally matched. The non forcy maybe a bit better because they can focus all their talents and skills. As it most likely will be, forcy characters will not be 'better' just have more options and can do some fancy tricks.

As to the darkside tracking, the way you say harm to sentients, means that if you eat meat, you're going to the dark side. Millions of people are dark side because they allow animals to be murdered and tortured for food. Now I'm sure you didn't mean that, but it is a valid point. Animals feel pain, pleasure can reason and sense the world around them. All things represented by sentience. Now, I don't eat meat anymore and my example is not a meat is murder and you're bad gir eating meat derail, but to show that a very vague 'harm senrients' can easily be seen from a certain point of view. It is a heavy handed knee jerk reaction rule.

I proposed commitment as a way to measure how closely you are following the tenents of your order/ tradition. If you want to play a Jedi but you act less like they should and more like a laser sword thug, then you don't get the benefit of being rewarded by reaching 100 commitment.

I see where you're coming from Donovan and I very much doubt there's anyone who wants to see 'Force Unleashed' type nonsense less than me.

But some groups will want to explore the moral greys, or play broadly decent characters in a world of moral greys. The Force-sensitive Exile character type seems to have more concern about surviving day to day than following fortune cookies, for example. EoE is all about the Fringe, and those who fall between the cracks, just as AOE is about war. F&D is supposedly about The Force, and I guess that is where we should explore such things.

And mechanically speaking, if you're the proud owner of two Force Dice, you're gonna want to tap the Dark Side quite often if you want to use your powers at all. Maybe the Jedi guy with 6 or 7 might need to be reined in in that regard, I don't know. But it's perfectly in character for a FSEx to do so with no more penalties than we see in the EoE game.

Maybe I'm lucky at my age to be particular about who I game with. I don't doubt there are horror stories and you're experienced enough to have seen this first-hand.

But the problem here is that, while rewarding good play encourages it, punishing bad play with mechanical stuff rarely discourages it. What's needed is talking to to that player in private, not hitting them with some clunky alignment system.

And I agree with Logan that - so far - Force Users are not inherently more powerful than other characters of the same XP. Whether F&D will change that, with 6 Force Dice and lightsabers-for-everyone, I've no idea.