I think a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to light side and dark side. There are a lot of sides to consider in the argument (pun intended).

There is what a council of Jedi think is light side. There is what an individual thinks is light side. There is what the Force itself thinks is light side. None of these things have to agree with one another.

Part of the reason the Sith keep rearing their ugly heads is because the Jedi don't have it all figured out. They only think they do.

An obvious example is the Jedi feelings about love. Like it or not Love for humans is intrinsically tied to reproduction. Force sensitivity is an inherited trait. If the Jedi don't get busy then each generation will have fewer force sensitive members. It takes too much effort to raise a child if you have nothing invested in them (i.e. love them).

To deny love makes Jedi stupid. Stupid is a form of unintentional evil and thus you could conclude that Jedi who deny love are dark side. Hence what the force thinks is different from what some Jedi Councils have erroneously concluded.

Things to think about in your game:

Is Obi-wan evil when he chops Darth Maul in twain?

Does it matter whether Obi-wan used a lightsaber, or tore Maul in two using the force? Dead is dead after all.

Is Luke using the Dark Side when he goes all righteous fury on the Storm Troopers after Obi-wan's passing?

Was it Anakin's love of Padme that lead to his fall or was it his obsession with thwarting death?

My thoughts:

To the more discerning person there is no light or dark side. Only outcomes and intentions. The Jedi rigidly control themselves because self-justification leads to corrupting one's own soul, not because a given action is inherently light or dark side.

A Jedi is evil when he kills out of vengeance or blood lust. He is good when he kills to protect, or end suffering.

Yes, Yoda is sometimes wrong. Gasp! Without anger there is no emotional counter to fear, which is why Jedi are so careful to feel nothing, but without feelings there is no life. Without life there is no Force. If the questions where easy we wouldn't need to tell stories to explore them.

The Jensaari don't even deserve mention. Sorry that's it.

Hey Shamrock, keep reading those if you want to, but know that it is all wiped out by the Clone Wars cartoon, or will be soon wiped away by Leeland Chee, keeper of the holocron, and the Jensaari as well. For a taste of the author and her views on Jedi, read this. It may change your mind about continuing reading her books. If not, I hope you enjoy them and get a lot it of them. Now, buckle your seatbelts, you're going for a ride on the crazy train.

http://www.karentraviss.com/page10/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

Are you saying you feel that what she wrote in the letter you linked to is "a ride on the crazy train"?

I haven't read any of her books, but I agree 100% with what she wrote in that letter.

To me one of the coolest things about the whole Star Wars saga is the multiple shades of morality in it, and the way that sometimes we feel compelled to do the wrong things for the right reason. The Clone Army was part of Palpatine's plan just as much as the Droid Armies were.

Palpatine basically backed the Republic into a corner and they felt like they had no choice but to accept the creation of this army of cloned slaves and make use of them to defend themselves. It may have been a noble instinct, but that doesn't make it 100% light-side-good, in my opinion.

I liked the episodes of The Clone Wars where they brought this up. Some clones felt that it wasn't right for them to be enslaved to the Republic and wanted the freedom to pursue their own destiny. That's an interesting challenge that makes for some good storytelling and some interesting stories.

Also remember that Star Wars fans can be rabid maniacs. I don't even want to think about what kind of hate mail a Star Wars author would get, or what kind of encounters she would have on the street, or at conventions, if certain fans decide that she "hates Jedi" or holds some other view they find disagreeable.

Not one of these examples is Qui-Gon using the Dark side of the force, or even morally ambiguous.

I'll agree to that. Qui-Gon isn't using the Dark Side of the Force; because there is no Dark Side of the Force.

There is only the Force and the people who use it.

The people who use it do so in a manner that is light/dark.

Qui-Gon used the Force to lie, cheat, swindle (attempted to anyway), and to coerce. Those are not morally ambiguous actions; they are wrong. The fact that Qui-Gon is willing to use his powers in these ways convience me that Qui-Gon is "grey" on the light/dark spectrum.

Consider this from Wedge Antilles:

"If we act like the Empire, then we become the Empire"

Or just the idiom, The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Or just the idiom, The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Also, there are no stop signs, speed limits. And last I heard, also nobody's going to slow you down.

What!? The Jedi aren't perfect! Such Blasphemy! Get off these forums, delete your account, and burn your Star Wars stuff!!

Sorry couldn't resist there. yes the jedi are not perfect, hell watch episode III. They show that in Clone Wars cartoon. Yes, some Jedi turned to the dark side because of the war.

I think calling stupid people unintentionally evil is kind out in left field.

In the near future, I think we are going to get a more holistic approach to the force. I think it is going to shift back to what Lucas wanted, not some author, whose only interest was to make money, not tell a good story. I think a lot of these other force groups are going to get "Order 66'd" or should we call the cleansing of the EU Order 67?

I think a lot of these other force groups are going to get "Order 66'd" or should we call the cleansing of the EU Order 67?

I don't see what's wrong with other force groups. Sure, people are going to disagree with the different Force "beliefs," but isn't that the point of having varying views in the first place? I think it only makes sense that there would be numerous groups other than the Jedi.

The Jensaari don't even deserve mention. Sorry that's it.

Hey Shamrock, keep reading those if you want to, but know that it is all wiped out by the Clone Wars cartoon, or will be soon wiped away by Leeland Chee, keeper of the holocron, and the Jensaari as well. For a taste of the author and her views on Jedi, read this. It may change your mind about continuing reading her books. If not, I hope you enjoy them and get a lot it of them. Now, buckle your seatbelts, you're going for a ride on the crazy train.

http://www.karentraviss.com/page10/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

I just read read what Ms Traviss wrote, and honestly, I agree with much of it. It makes me curious to read some of her books.

I have to disagree with R2 that these are "her views on Jedi" or "a ride on the crazy train". She's basically just saying that she's frightened by the people that are so obsessed with fictional characters that they become the rabid fanboys. I see the same thing with Bobba Fett. I look what he's wearing in the movies and I see (in Edge of the Empire terms) armored clothing but there are people that insist that it must be super heavy ultra indestructible armor because they worship at the altar of the mandalorian. It's the same as her view, that the Jedi fan boys are scary because they worship at the altar of fiction.

The root of what I read is that she thinks that the rabid fan boys need some help. As someone who likes to play devils advocate and challenge the herd mentality, I think she's got a valid point. It must have been very interesting for her to write about what she did. It'd be like challenging someones view of their particular deity and then having to face the pitchforks and torches of those that get angry when someone points out flaws in pretty illusion they wrap themselves in.

I want to open up with this Rules as Written concern the OP has (if that is in fact the acronym you're using). The rules, as written, clearly and repeatedly spell out that you as the GM have all of the power and control to apply new rules and penalties to a player who's using powers in an extraneous way, with regards to the dark side, and with regards to power interpretations. There are about four references in the Force chapter alone, with numerous others throughout the book. Using the advice from that podcast is 100% Rules as Written. It's not a house rule when the rulebook tells you to do it. If this player is abusing the powers he has, you have complete and total control and jurisdiction to apply penalties, strain, checks, and other game effects onto the player. If you don't believe me, let me know and I'll get you page numbers and quotes.

This player does not have power over you or your game. Yes, roleplaying is a collaborative action and is not meant to be player vs. GM. But sometimes players like to do stupid and abusive things that break the game, powerplay, upset the GM, and ruin everyone's fun. That's why these games have rules, and that's why FFG wrote in repeatedly that the GM has the power to apply rulings and challenges when these things happen but there aren't rules in the book for handling it.

Next, I'll quickly address this "grey Force" nonsense. I think it's adorable that this player thinks the Force is a sliding scale between light and dark, and that he thinks he can draw on the dark side without recourse as long as he does something with the light side. Maybe that's even the character's view of the Force. That's great. That's adorable. That's even a great character piece that I would 100% support players coming up with. But that's absolutely not how the game or the canon works. As with my earlier comment on movements and gestures, the player can think that he isn't drawing on the dark side all he wants. But once he does, that's not for him to decide. The movies, comics, games, and books are filled with examples of characters unknowingly falling to the dark side. It sounds like the OP has come around to understand this, but I wanted to try and bring it back to the problem at hand.

And now I'd like to close with the outbursts (both the OP's and the player's). Please understand that I'm not trying to start a fight here, nor is anyone esle. You came onto a forum, complaining about a player who is abusing the rules, throwing tantrums, possibly cheating, and escalating from 0 to maximum hostility every single time you try and talk to him about this. You can't possibly tell me that you didn't expect such harsh comments from people. You can't possibly belief that someone, at some point, wouldn't tell you to kill the character and/or kick the player. Yes, we are missing a lot of context. But all anyone has had to go on is that this player is a problem and you wanted some help and advice.

Yes, I suggested a grudge monster. That might sound like a ridiculous escalation, but the person who specifically replied to that post missed the part where I talked about having NPC's able to do the same. He or she missed all of that description of how you can show the player what he's doing wrong by having it happen to them. He or she missed all of that talk about the consequences of the character's actions. Grudge monster doesn't mean kill that character. Grudge monster means showing the player what he's doing wrong with a display of force proportionate to what's being displayed in game. If he wants to toss around the Force like a basketball, have a Force sensitive opponent show up and do the same thing. Suddenly it's not that cute anymore. If a character has a Ranged skill of 4 Yellow, he should be fighting things with comparable skills. If a pilot has a huge Pilot skill and can out dogfight whatever you throw at them, it's time to step up the challenge. If a Force user can use such destructive displays of power, they should be met with an opponent who can do the same. It's not about revenge. It's about challenge and fairness. Players should be using the same rules, unless specifically countered elsewhere, as the GM and vice versa. This also goes for rulings. If an NPC can do something, the players expect to be able to do it. But if the players do something, they can't complain when the GM has an opponent do the same.

As for the player's specific and seemingly repeated tantrums and escalations, that has to be raising some alarms for you. If he is going to escalate that quickly just because he was attacked once in combat, you have to be able to see the problems. If you tried to guide him towards formal NPC training (whether such a thing was right or wrong isn't the point), and he blew up and said that he'd just hoard XP in order to spite you , you have to acknowledge that something is going wrong.

I game with close friends. I know what that's like. I get it. But I absolutely hate the crap that some of them bring to the table. One of my players wanted to play something powerful in a game I was prepping. I let him, but I also asked him to adjust the background for the character to be more in line with the setting (mostly where the character was stationed so I could actually bring him into the game). He completely and utterly refused. After months of arguing, I killed the game and said that it was his fault I wasn't running it. I'm a GM because I want us all to have fun. I want to take the burden off of the usual one or two people who always have to run something. But I will not stand for one second being bullied by my players or having such meaningless tantrums. If a player is only going to be antagonizing me at every step of the way, that player does not have a seat at my table, no matter how good of friends we are. I've had to do the same thing with my best friend, who I believe has had to do the same thing with his wife. This guy might be the best friend in the world and a hoot to hang out with, but from what you've said, he's a crappy player and is openly hostile to the thought of you being his GM. That's not a good thing.

I'm sorry if any of this sounds harsh, but this is how it is. If the player is causing problems, solve the problem. If talking with him about it is causing more problems and open hostility against you, you need to put your foot down and make a hard choice. If you have other details that you want to share because you think replies like this are to harsh, you need to share them.

An obvious example is the Jedi feelings about love. Like it or not Love for humans is intrinsically tied to reproduction. Force sensitivity is an inherited trait. If the Jedi don't get busy then each generation will have fewer force sensitive members. It takes too much effort to raise a child if you have nothing invested in them (i.e. love them).

To deny love makes Jedi stupid. Stupid is a form of unintentional evil and thus you could conclude that Jedi who deny love are dark side. Hence what the force thinks is different from what some Jedi Councils have erroneously concluded.

<snip>

My thoughts:

To the more discerning person there is no light or dark side. Only outcomes and intentions. The Jedi rigidly control themselves because self-justification leads to corrupting one's own soul, not because a given action is inherently light or dark side.

I think Jolee in the KOTOR-1 game summed it up nicely (just played it through, so it's somewhat fresh in my mind). I can't quote verbatim, but he's definitely in the camp of the Jedi councils being wrong about love. And yet, he also knows that there is a dark and light side to the Force. As he put it, it's not love that leads to the dark side, but passion. Uncontrolled passion, which is possessive and self-serving.

What you're talking about is what the EU refers to as the Potentium heresy, something both the Jedi and Sith reject. And ironically, nearly all the Potentium advocates in the EU end up dark-siders...

...because there *is* a dark side. It offers power quickly and easily, but more insidiously it encourages rationalization of the use of that power. That's how it snags the Potentium advocates.

As for Qui-gon cheating, etc...as a follower of the Living Force he apparently was doing what the Force told him. His response to a conundrum is more practical and grounded than that of the out-of-touch Council. Perhaps cheating the cheater was necessary to allow larger events to proceed.

Dude needs to chill.

One of the solutions may be giving the player a new obligation as previously mentioned. I'm starting my first FSE as a player and I discussed the Force, itself being a type of Dutybound Obligation (I choose Jedi Code with my PC being alive during the time of order 66, albeit very young however his adopted 'father' gave him a dataslate with the code, for him to have knowledge of it tenets). For the particular situation, it seems like it may work, with a non-trained force user having to cope with this deep connection to world around them manifesting throughout their being. Use the force too much and the PC may be exasperated, or suffer strain because of his untrained force usage. Using a lot of the Force, as previously mention has a ripple effect of creating disturbances, or even feeling them yourself. Usage in front of people makes them question you, perhaps even distrust you. To lower Obligation, my character Meditates for periods of times, attempting to console himself and get himself back on track. It's a fun way to demonstrate a young force user, trying to fight the urge to fall to the dark side, without training.

In the PbP I run, the GMs keep track of Force use secretly and apply what we call 'force obligation' to simulate the feel of what's going on in the Galaxy at the time. Players don't know what their limits are, but they understand if they use the force too much, there are real consequences to their actions. RP'd meditation and time between uses decreases that force obligation score. The player's seem to like the concept and we haven't had any complaints as it lets them develop force users, but they must 'hide' from the grasp of the Empire.

I know it's not necessarily applicable to all situations, but it may help to have the discussion with the PC that if he continues to use Force powers, even without 'moving' or going to the Dark Side, he will have to accept Obligation as a trade-off, rather than limiting his growth into the tree. Explain to him that the Force transcends the eye, as well as takes a toll on the user without proper training... Like a person untrained with the Lightersaber, going around using it as a weapon, eventually their going to get hurt, or questions why their using a banned weapon.

It won't work for everyone, but it may help you out and let you manage this particular player if it's affecting your game negatively.

R2builder, i suggest you reread message #79 in the thread, page 4, author R2builder, where you negatively respond to the replies you'd gotten thus far. That's the outburst I'm talking about. You asked from assistance with a problem player, and then flipped out saying that we know nothing of your game. Reread your own post. That's where I'm coming from.

And I would caution you about berating the grammar of an English language teacher. Where's your degree? A closing is a topic, not a paragraph. I does not need to be the very last paragraph.

You asked a question about your game. I gave my advice. Leave it at that.

R2builder, i suggest you reread message #79 in the thread, page 4, author R2builder, where you negatively respond to the replies you'd gotten thus far. That's the outburst I'm talking about. You asked from assistance with a problem player, and then flipped out saying that we know nothing of your game. Reread your own post. That's where I'm coming from.

And I would caution you about berating the grammar of an English language teacher. Where's your degree? A closing is a topic, not a paragraph. I does not need to be the very last paragraph.

You asked a question about your game. I gave my advice. Leave it at that.

Dude, you have some serious issues. Thank you for your "Caution" but I choose not heed it.

First I do not think you are an English teacher, and claiming to be one if you are not is horrible. And if you are truly an English teacher, then that is even more horrendous. An English teacher worth a **** would take great care and pride in how they write. They would double check spelling and punctuation. Which you have clearly demonstrated you do not. They would/should also understand the basic principles or writing and know the difference between a "Topic" and a "Paragraph". Perhaps you can use this in your class, it may help:

Topic:

— n (Oh, that is a Noun, it is a person, place, or thing)

1. A subject or theme of a speech, essay, book, etc

2. A subject of conversation; item of discussion

3.(in rhetoric, logic, etc) a category or class of arguments or ideas which may be drawn on to furnish proofs

Paragraph:

A distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular idea, usually beginning with an indentation on a new line.

"In closing" is a paragraph, not a topic, unless you are talking about Closing. Let me show you:

"In a conclusion paragraph, you summarize what you've written about in your paper. When you’re writing a good conclusion paragraph, you need to think about the main point that you want to get across and be sure it’s included. If you've already written a fabulous introductory paragraph, you can write something similar with different wording. Here are some points to remember:"

A conclusion is what you will leave with your reader

It "wraps up" your essay

It demonstrates to the reader that you accomplished what you set out to do

It shows how you have proved your thesis

It provides the reader with a sense of closure on the topic

(It is not in the middle of the writing)

On to this so called "Berating". Definition: scold or criticize (someone) angrily

My sentence : "Also, when you say I would like to close, that is your final paragraph in English" I fail to see any anger in that sentence. Disappointment yes, anger no. I was poking fun, not scolding, like I am now.

Now, before I conclude, I would like to talk about this:

R2builder, i suggest you reread message #79 in the thread, page 4, author R2builder, where you negatively respond to the replies you'd gotten thus far. That's the outburst I'm talking about. You asked from assistance with a problem player, and then flipped out saying that we know nothing of your game. Reread your own post. That's where I'm coming from.

Ok everyone, Let's all take a deep breath...In...Out...In...out...there we should all feel a little better now. Are people making assumptions about my game and topic and first couple of posts here? Sure, but it is no big deal. Of course everyone understands that you can't put every detail about a session in to on online posting, so they kind of have to fill in the gaps, and that doesn't bug me. From the first posting I had people telling me to pull out the big time Hunters, Inquisitors even Vader. I have tried to explain that if I wanted the character dead, any of of them, I could do it easily do it. That is not what I want to do.

I fail to see any negative comments, or me "flipping" out saying you don't know anything about my game. I actually see someone being very polite and stating that people are making assumptions "Is no big deal; "Does not bug me".

I did state that I do not like people making the argument "You know how long it takes to build a force user" logic. I guess I did "flip" out in that part, but I was trying to be over the top exasperated in a playful manner. Sorry if that did not come across.

In conclusion, I have given you basic teaching of essay writing, the proper meaning of paragraphs and topics, and the basics of a closing paragraph. I have also covered the fact that I did not "flip" out or say that advice was not welcome. Perhaps you should ask for a refund for your "degree" in English, and possibly find a new career.

-R2builder

Isn't this whole idea of Grey... wait what? This isn't middle-earth. The one, stressed example of a force user riding the line, that we have is Solo, and he turned out a Darth. So, it's not like it worked. Either way, this is on you, it's your game, but no way would I allow it.

In addition, I can promise you any EU that dealt with the future of the Solo's/Skywalkers/Kenobis, or any other character is going to be scrapped. 1) if they keep it, they give away the movies... and 2) they limit the scope of what they can do and where they can go with the movies. It's not happening! So, that would negate the whole Grey argument.

Qwi Gon didn't ride the line?

He used the Force to try to steal from Watto, cheated in a legitimate bet, get a Bonga from the Gungans (which he didn't return). Qwi Gon is the type of guy for whom the ends justify the means. He's is doing "bad" for a "greater good". That's definitely a grey area to me.

What about Bindo? The Exile? Revan?

While being mostly "Light" those folks are not perfectly one or the other. That's the point though. The Force isn't just black and white. It just exists. It's the energy between the rock and the tree. By itself, it's absolutely neutral. You've got people using it who are just people. A few are good, a few are evil, most are somewhere inbetween.

No, not at all! In fact the only objectionable thing the character did was indoctrinate and take on Anakin at too late an age. Good intentions, but we all know what path they pave.

The Jensaari don't even deserve mention. Sorry that's it.

Hey Shamrock, keep reading those if you want to, but know that it is all wiped out by the Clone Wars cartoon, or will be soon wiped away by Leeland Chee, keeper of the holocron, and the Jensaari as well. For a taste of the author and her views on Jedi, read this. It may change your mind about continuing reading her books. If not, I hope you enjoy them and get a lot it of them. Now, buckle your seatbelts, you're going for a ride on the crazy train.

http://www.karentraviss.com/page10/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

I actually enjoy the books, thus far. I take them with a grain of salt, especially now that they are going Mando- full-throttle. I very much so, enjoyed her first Halo book Glasslands, and her Gears of War novels. I intend to read the other two Halo books she has written, at some point, but I know she starts drawing away from the Spartans and that is the entire reason I read Halo, so while I wish to read the story, I'm less impatient to get to it.

As to the Clone Books, the entire reason I got into them in the first place is because I was curious if any of the clones were able to refuse Order 66. Googled that and found that the Alpha batch, and some of the earlier clones (the ones in the video game Republic Commando, which I think is my favorite console game) had occurrences where they didn't. So that led me to those particular books.

Mando or not, The clone commandos are a force to be reckoned with. I would say due to their upbringing and concentration on war, they would be the baddest group around that isn't using the force. IMO they are better then the Mandos they are based off.

What's wrong with the Jensaari?

They are EU. Beyond that, I could come up with a list, but it wouldn't matter. That's just me. Until EU is identified as canon or not, I don't have a ton of adoration for it. I'm not saying there are not select parts I enjoyed, but by and large, I think about 80% of it isn't very Star Wars, and super flavor of the month.

The first one was okay, but the rest are trash. Nothing to do with how she sees Jedi, heck I agree with her about some of that. But the books are booooooring. And in any case, she makes the same mistake with her Mandalorians that she is accusing other people of making with Jedi. Ironic.

I'm only about half way into the second book. As I said, it's kinda getting to be a mando-fest, but I don't find it a bad read, yet. You do have a point on the irony though.

I think a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to light side and dark side. There are a lot of sides to consider in the argument (pun intended).

There is what a council of Jedi think is light side. There is what an individual thinks is light side. There is what the Force itself thinks is light side. None of these things have to agree with one another.

Part of the reason the Sith keep rearing their ugly heads is because the Jedi don't have it all figured out. They only think they do.

An obvious example is the Jedi feelings about love. Like it or not Love for humans is intrinsically tied to reproduction. Force sensitivity is an inherited trait. If the Jedi don't get busy then each generation will have fewer force sensitive members. It takes too much effort to raise a child if you have nothing invested in them (i.e. love them).

To deny love makes Jedi stupid. Stupid is a form of unintentional evil and thus you could conclude that Jedi who deny love are dark side. Hence what the force thinks is different from what some Jedi Councils have erroneously concluded.

Things to think about in your game:

Is Obi-wan evil when he chops Darth Maul in twain?

Does it matter whether Obi-wan used a lightsaber, or tore Maul in two using the force? Dead is dead after all.

Is Luke using the Dark Side when he goes all righteous fury on the Storm Troopers after Obi-wan's passing?

Was it Anakin's love of Padme that lead to his fall or was it his obsession with thwarting death?

My thoughts:

To the more discerning person there is no light or dark side. Only outcomes and intentions. The Jedi rigidly control themselves because self-justification leads to corrupting one's own soul, not because a given action is inherently light or dark side.

A Jedi is evil when he kills out of vengeance or blood lust. He is good when he kills to protect, or end suffering.

Yes, Yoda is sometimes wrong. Gasp! Without anger there is no emotional counter to fear, which is why Jedi are so careful to feel nothing, but without feelings there is no life. Without life there is no Force. If the questions where easy we wouldn't need to tell stories to explore them.

I wouldn't suggest that there were not other methods to the force... The witches are proof of that. What I suggest is that the force is still light or dark, it still holds the same properties, regardless of the beliefs of the person wielding it. If said person is committing evil acts, they get force lightening. Doesn't matter the reasoning behind it.

Count Dooku is a great example of that. In his eyes, he wasn't evil. He said he had philosophical differences with the jedi that he was a member of. He felt he knew better... Anakin would be another, he didn't set out to go bat-crap crazy. He wasn't looking to Darth up. EU is riddled with other examples of "force users", but they all hold the same basic principles. Use it for good, and don't get corrupted, start using it immorally and absolute power corrupts. Every. Single. Time.

I want to open up with this Rules as Written concern the OP has (if that is in fact the acronym you're using). The rules, as written, clearly and repeatedly spell out that you as the GM have all of the power and control to apply new rules and penalties to a player who's using powers in an extraneous way, with regards to the dark side, and with regards to power interpretations. There are about four references in the Force chapter alone, with numerous others throughout the book. Using the advice from that podcast is 100% Rules as Written. It's not a house rule when the rulebook tells you to do it. If this player is abusing the powers he has, you have complete and total control and jurisdiction to apply penalties, strain, checks, and other game effects onto the player. If you don't believe me, let me know and I'll get you page numbers and quotes.

(yadda, yadda, yadda)

I'm sorry if any of this sounds harsh, but this is how it is. If the player is causing problems, solve the problem. If talking with him about it is causing more problems and open hostility against you, you need to put your foot down and make a hard choice. If you have other details that you want to share because you think replies like this are to harsh, you need to share them.

You Sir, have won the boards for the day. This is a very well presented post.

I'm not sure what R2 is looking for.... hard core written rule, it isn't there, but power to expand upon the rules is all over the place. Suggestions on how to expand upon said rules are also aplenty. The podcast offers some great suggestions, that are developer backed, balanced, etc... I use them because I think they present a more viable experience. Someone whose slapped 75 xp into force user isn't stealing the spotlight.

The segment that applies, strictly, to this topic, is all of about 5-10 minutes. If you're concerned that your players wont have access to it, then play it for them at the next meeting. Or take notes and make it a subject for the table prior to the next game session. Trust me, your other players aren't going to poop cupcakes because you're trying to level the playing field. Your only other real option, if you don't wish to bump the rules to a more operable format, and you don't want said jedi running around like Jesus with a few fish in Ethiopia, would be to disallow force users entirely from your players.

By the way:

• Yes, Obi-Wan Kenobi call to the Dark Side when he kill Darth Maul, obviously with anger.
• Yes, Luke Skywalker got tainted by the Dark Side when he kill all these stormtroopers.
• Yes, Luke Skywalker probably use the Dark Side once or two times when confronting Darth Vader (because of his fear).
• Yes, Luke Skywalker is once again tempted by the Dark Side when he charge Vader at the end of the RoJ.

Why aren't they crazy Dark Jedi ? Because the fall is something subtle and slow. Because they understand that they were doing bad. Because they redeemed them-self.

The risk of falling to the Dark Side should ALWAYS be central to Force Sensitive characters. If not, then the Force is just a set of magic / psychic powers and you are not playing Star Wars anymore.

I think a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to light side and dark side. There are a lot of sides to consider in the argument (pun intended).

There is what a council of Jedi think is light side. There is what an individual thinks is light side. There is what the Force itself thinks is light side. None of these things have to agree with one another.

Part of the reason the Sith keep rearing their ugly heads is because the Jedi don't have it all figured out. They only think they do.

An obvious example is the Jedi feelings about love. Like it or not Love for humans is intrinsically tied to reproduction. Force sensitivity is an inherited trait. If the Jedi don't get busy then each generation will have fewer force sensitive members. It takes too much effort to raise a child if you have nothing invested in them (i.e. love them).

To deny love makes Jedi stupid. Stupid is a form of unintentional evil and thus you could conclude that Jedi who deny love are dark side. Hence what the force thinks is different from what some Jedi Councils have erroneously concluded.

Things to think about in your game:

Is Obi-wan evil when he chops Darth Maul in twain?

Does it matter whether Obi-wan used a lightsaber, or tore Maul in two using the force? Dead is dead after all.

Is Luke using the Dark Side when he goes all righteous fury on the Storm Troopers after Obi-wan's passing?

Was it Anakin's love of Padme that lead to his fall or was it his obsession with thwarting death?

My thoughts:

To the more discerning person there is no light or dark side. Only outcomes and intentions. The Jedi rigidly control themselves because self-justification leads to corrupting one's own soul, not because a given action is inherently light or dark side.

A Jedi is evil when he kills out of vengeance or blood lust. He is good when he kills to protect, or end suffering.

Yes, Yoda is sometimes wrong. Gasp! Without anger there is no emotional counter to fear, which is why Jedi are so careful to feel nothing, but without feelings there is no life. Without life there is no Force. If the questions where easy we wouldn't need to tell stories to explore them.

As you point out, the whole idea of love is a very powerful emotion. It in and of itself isn't a bad thing at all, but it can be exploited, and thus best avoided. Luke, to some part, was able to manage the two (IF you subscribe to EU, for all we know this isn't canon, and the marriage to Mara could be the very reason it get's scrapped), but I would suggest he was more the exception then the rule. For the most part, most people wouldn't be able to separate that two (love and duty), and thus would be setting themselves up for a world of hurt. It only takes one to fail, and that led to an entire purge of the Jedi, countless lives lost, a tyrannical government in power for the better part of 30 years. All over some hot shot deciding he knew better then the masters. Love caused this whole mess.

It isn't something that can be stopped, as you correctly circled, so it's best to avoid it entirely. Not becoming static in ones movements, is a great start. Can't fall in love if you're not there for enough time to do it. It's the same concept of cheating on your SO. Can't be tempted if you're not in the situation in the first place.

By the way:

• Yes, Obi-Wan Kenobi call to the Dark Side when he kill Darth Maul, obviously with anger.
• Yes, Luke Skywalker got tainted by the Dark Side when he kill all these stormtroopers.
• Yes, Luke Skywalker probably use the Dark Side once or two times when confronting Darth Vader (because of his fear).
• Yes, Luke Skywalker is once again tempted by the Dark Side when he charge Vader at the end of the RoJ.

Why aren't they crazy Dark Jedi ? Because the fall is something subtle and slow. Because they understand that they were doing bad. Because they redeemed them-self.

The risk of falling to the Dark Side should ALWAYS be central to Force Sensitive characters. If not, then the Force is just a set of magic / psychic powers and you are not playing Star Wars anymore.

I have to disagree.... Obi-Wan didn't kill Maul for revenge. Q, wasn't even dead when Obi sliced Maul in half. He attacked him because not doing so would have killed, not only himself, a ton (like a planet worth) of other, innocent, people. Also, Maul didn't die there, he's in the Clone Wars cartoons with a nice robotic bottom half.

He also pleaded with Anakin to stop. He was left with no choice in that situation. That wasn't dark-side, that was responsibility.

Obi-Wan, showed nothing but restraint with Jango, as well.

I don't recall luke fighting any stormies once he became a jedi. Undoubtedly, he did, just off screen, but was he hunting them down to kill them or were they shooting at him, and he didn't have many alternatives?

Same with the other examples... if Luke was tempted by the darkside when confronting Vader/Emperor, they didn't do a very good job of getting that across to the audience. I wasn't left with that impression. In fact, I believe that if he showed the slightest bit of "taint", the Emperor wouldn't have jumped on the Thor band wagon so quickly. He's a patient man when it comes to corruption. Took him years with Anakin, and he's got nothing but time in the later 3 movies.

For good or ill, I think you bring up some good points though. I think, more then not, these very points are the reason we saw a droid army in the first 3 movies, so one wouldn't have to question the needless taking of lives, by Jeid.

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW.

If I have a player who owns the CRB, and creates a character around said rules, thinking this is how the game will operate, then I change the rules on him mid-game is pretty jacked up in my opinion. For example, going with this topic, he uses move to pull a gun from someone. He has all the appropriate talents and abilities. He rolls the Force die, gets his two light pips, he thinks he succeeded, but then I tell him, nope, you still have to roll Discipline vs. his Discipline. !?!?! I as a player would be like WTF!?!? Even after if the GM told me after the game, thats how it would be. I would feel very slighted.

If a character had a build going to improve armor and weapons, but I told him he can never apply the bonus to his armor, that is my right as a GM, but is still pretty F'ed up if he didn't know it from the beginning. If a player is playing by the rules, and the GM feels that they (GM) is not winning enough, so changes the rules to make things harder on the PC, then that is seriously wrong. I have stated in this thread that I am now very excited to see my force user gain a rating of +2 and +3.

When I read that using Dedication to bring up Brawl will not have an effect on Wound Threshold, my first thought was, well, I'll change that. But why do I need to change it? Do I put so little stock in this game that I can make it better? The developers put that in there for a reason. Yes, I am free to change it, but is the reason good enough. Now if a player buys Dedication expecting the WT to go up, I can refer him to the page explaining it does not. Perhaps he should have read the rules better.

Yes, if I am the GM, I can do anything I want. I can have people shooting a blaster also need to roll a Discipline check, or they pass out from shooting another living being, or I can say that while using a doing Mechanics, you also need to roll an Agility check to use the fine tools...I can also have a Grudge Death Star just come blow up the universe my players are in too. To change the rules to penalize your players is about the worst thing a Game Master can do. That does not win the boards for anything. It shows a callous individual who will cheat to get their way, when the players are not doing what he wants.

Some of my originals questions were about the powers and how they operate inside the game world. When people start throwing out their versions of rules, that does not really help in anyones understanding of said rules. People on this thread started talking about what if rules, how they should have been done. I asked people to refrain from that subject as it has nothing to do with my topic at hand.

Yes, I understand that I have the power GOD in my games, but changing the rules just to change them or to "punish" a player or to teach them a lesson is advice I don't really need or want.

I would whip this player to death if he were in my game, then make him issue constant and numerous apologies on forums. It's crap like this that keeps me from bring able to play a Force user in any game I try to join. Of players stopped acting like dicks and stopped breaking the rules, GM's wouldn't be so ridiculously resistant to Force users in games. I want to play a Force user because it's an interesting story piece. But players like this ruin it for everyone.

Um, thanks I guess. But I can see how that would keep you out of any group or keep everyone out of your group. So this my my negative response to advice like this. Thanks, but that is not really helpful.

I have to disagree.... Obi-Wan didn't kill Maul for revenge. Q, wasn't even dead when Obi sliced Maul in half. He attacked him because not doing so would have killed, not only himself, a ton (like a planet worth) of other, innocent, people. Also, Maul didn't die there, he's in the Clone Wars cartoons with a nice robotic bottom half.

I don't recall luke fighting any stormies once he became a jedi. Undoubtedly, he did, just off screen, but was he hunting them down to kill them or were they shooting at him, and he didn't have many alternatives?

Same with the other examples... if Luke was tempted by the darkside when confronting Vader/Emperor, they didn't do a very good job of getting that across to the audience. I wasn't left with that impression. In fact, I believe that if he showed the slightest bit of "taint", the Emperor wouldn't have jumped on the Thor band wagon so quickly. He's a patient man when it comes to corruption. Took him years with Anakin, and he's got nothing but time in the later 3 movies.

I think you and I were watching different movies.

Obi-wan is clearly angred by Qui-gon's death. Yeah, he wasn't 100% dead that second, but he was down with a serious wound and Obi-wan can feel him dying. The point is that Obi-wan is angry there and clearly struggling to control him rage.

And re-watch the throne room confrontation again. Luke is tempted. He originally strikes out at the Emperor who is taunting him. When Vader mentions turning Leia, Luke jumps out of hiding and bashes Vader into submission with raw emotion. That scene where he cuts off Vader's hand and then looks at his own robotic hand...? That's him realizing that he was becoming like his father. He then throws down his sword; refusing to use the power of his anger and fear. It's one of the defining moments of the films.

By the way:

• Yes, Obi-Wan Kenobi call to the Dark Side when he kill Darth Maul, obviously with anger.

I have to disagree.... Obi-Wan didn't kill Maul for revenge.

But he did, if you missed that you missed one of the key elements of the scene.

Maul even references it in TCW, goads Obiwan into descending again, and mocks him for being unbalanced. Obiwan only escapes with the help of Ventress.

But it's a good lesson: the next time they meet Obiwan is up to the challenge, even after Adi Gallia goes down.

One of the things that I've always found interesting is that the Force balances itself... The was always the 'prophesied one' that would bring 'balance to the Force', what if the Force wasn't 'balanced'? I know it's heretical to say, but with all the 'good' Jedi represent, that doesn't necessarily mean 'balance'. If the prophecy, was the Force was to be balanced, perhaps the essence of the Force, represented itself in Palpatine and Vader as a balancing mechanism.

An interesting concept is that if there is no good or evil, things stagnate - when too much good is in the world, nothing drives the populace to really do anything. Imagine a world with no disease, no hunger, infinite life, you don't have people working toward making things better, or improving. The opposite would be true in a world filled with malice, pestilence and hunger... Perhaps those that could fix the problems are killed before they get a chance.

This brings in play the concepts of 'balance' - there are many references to force users that must 'balance' their connection with the Force Kyle Katarn, from Dark Forces is one the comes to mind. A man who started out an Imperial, and while a friend to Luke and the Jedi Academy, Katarn was constantly faced with balancing his light and dark tendencies, eventually becoming a member of the new Jedi Council. The path wasn't easy, but canonically as the Dark Forces and Jedi Knight series were both made by LucasArts, we've got a Jedi that many times defied the will of Luke, used Dark Side powers and worked alone to fight what he considered to be evil. Another reference, from another previously mentioned Jedi is Jolee Bindo, who, while good, disagreed with many of the tenets of the Jedi order and eventually left them. He 'walked the line' if you will, but was never turned to the Dark Side.

I think the Force is more of a reference to fate and how it interacts with all things - the Force manifests itself in certain beings to do great good, or great evil. Is the Force User truly in control of the Force, or is the Force in control of the user? I believe both the Jedi and Sith would like to believe that they are in control, but that might not necessarily be the case...

The greatest example of what I believe is the force acting in mysterious ways with balancing was with Revan, which I won't sit here and go into mass amount of detail, because many of us are aware of that story.

Just as a conclusion, perhaps the Force doesn't 'see' good or evil, it uses instruments to bring 'balance' if either 'good' or 'evil' gets too powerful. Tis just a philosophy.

The force player had lifted him up and turned him around so he couldn't shoot the group.

Okay, coming in late to the game here, so I dont know if this has been resolved yet - but this sounds like a great opportunity for a recurring nemesis! The 'jedi' is being flashy and showy with his powers got the attention of the Bounty Hunter. The Hunter, knowing that he's going in for much bigger game than he anticipated, gears up for bear. He gets weapons that are attached to his armor that can't be yanked away by the force, area effect weapons that cant be deflected, projectile weapons that cant be sent back to it's target, sonic weapons to disrupt his concentration and some friends to deal with his companions. The 'jedi' does that lift and spin trick again? Thank goodness for the magnetic clamp boots that keep him rooted in place!

And yeah, they blew up the station with him on it. Rule one: if you don't see the body, they're not dead . The guy easily got off while the players were escaping. This hunter totally needs to return with payback on his mind.

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW.

A house rule is a standing change to the rules. A ruling (like those mentioned in this podcast) as decisions you are making when you run and not necessarily a standing rule. Rulings do no affect someone's ability to use the rules as written. You are getting the two mixed up.

But I'm done with you. Like I said, you asked people for their advice on this matter and then shot everything and flipped out because of their responses. Your replies to me are extremely and personally offensive, as I assume are your responses to other. I wish you no luck in dealing with your game. If you cannot take comments from people when you ask for their, I don't know what you are doing here. If you're going to throw everything back at people, may this player continue to abuse your game.

I am fully aware that this games allows and actually encourages people to mod the rules to best suit their needs. To create a "house rule". If a rule or idea comes from a podcast, and incorporated into a game, that is still a house rule. It is not part of the official publication or errata. Even when Jay Little and Sam Stewart says you can do this or that, it would still be a house ruling. That optional rule would not be allowed in tournament play. So using "ADVICE" from a podcast is not 100% RAW.

A house rule is a standing change to the rules. A ruling (like those mentioned in this podcast) as decisions you are making when you run and not necessarily a standing rule. Rulings do no affect someone's ability to use the rules as written. You are getting the two mixed up.

But I'm done with you. Like I said, you asked people for their advice on this matter and then shot everything and flipped out because of their responses. Your replies to me are extremely and personally offensive, as I assume are your responses to other. I wish you no luck in dealing with your game. If you cannot take comments from people when you ask for their, I don't know what you are doing here. If you're going to throw everything back at people, may this player continue to abuse your game.

Scooter, from my point of view, you are the one who's insulting and condescending. If you're really done, maybe you should just stop posting in this thread.