Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, WolfRider said:

I've tried to explain why a player might prefer to a Force-user character that is not the archetypal lightside Jedi or the archetypal darkisde villain, that choice being supported by SW canon lore. But you continue to belittle this choice. I won't repeat myself again and again since you're not going to accept another point of you than yours.

I'm just guessing this comment is directed at me, since you don't quote people you are responding to I'm not sure.   I'm not belittling your choice, I'm just pointing out that it's nothing new.  The rationale you propose is the same one that has been presented by many many people, regarding many different systems.  It's not a unique take on the discussion.   Which isn't a problem, I'm just pointing out that this is just rehashing the same discussion that has literally been going on for decades, and the bottom line is that people will play how they want.  You're unlikely to convince anyone that isn't already inclined to your view of the Force, just like none of us on the other side of the discussion are likely to convince you of the opposite viewpoint.

9 hours ago, WolfRider said:

 When I'm a GM at my table, a player can choose to play any kind of character even a grey Jedi or a lightside Jedi or a darkside Jedi. And a player plays his / her character as he / she wish, even a Force-user that think he / she can use darkside Force Pips, Powers or Talents without having a price to pay. Then that player will soon discover this behaviour is an highway to the darkside, the more use of the darkside the faster that destination is reached.

Go right ahead, nobody has said you can't run things how you want at your own table.  None of us care in that regard.    What do you mean by "no cost?"  Do you mean mechanically?  Because "this behavior is an highway to the darkside" IS a cost.   I'm confused what price you are removing, yet also having a price still in place.

9 hours ago, WolfRider said:

The changes to the Morality system to play grey Jedi are few and simple :

There really isn't a thing as a Grey Jedi, or the darkside jedi as you call it.  Those are contrary to the belief system of the Jedi, and by adopting those beliefs, you are going against their teachings, and shouldn't carry their label.  It's like going around fighting people every day, and calling yourself a pacifist.  They are mutually exclusive.  

9 hours ago, WolfRider said:

no need to flip a destiny points to use darkside pips or lightside pip but  strain cost for each Force pips used darkside or lightside and conflict taken for each darkside pips used and one serenity taken for each lightside pips used. I use the serenity table found on this forum and I modified the Morality roll accordingly. So far it works well and smoothly to prevent characters to slide naturally toward lightside paragon.

This is a runon sentence, so I'm confused where you are removing features of the rules.  I understand english is your second language, heck it's my first and my grammar is terrible, but some punctuation would be helpful to see where you are finishing thoughts.     To the idea of removing destiny points, yeah a lot of us have removed that rule too, I suggested it myself about 3 years ago or so as a way to make tempting people to the dark side easier.  It's supposed to be "quicker, easier, more seductive", but limiting it behind a very small party resource like Destiny Points, makes it hard to convince players to use that dark side pip as easily.   This has nothing to do with the grey morality discussion, and is just simply a way to tweak the mechanics that FFG put in place, that seems a bit too restrictive to a lot of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WolfRider said:

I've tried to explain why a player might prefer to a Force-user character that is not the archetypal lightside Jedi or the archetypal darkisde villain, that choice being supported by SW canon lore. But you continue to belittle this choice. I won't repeat myself again and again since you're not going to accept another point of you than yours. When I'm a GM at my table, a player can choose to play any kind of character even a grey Jedi or a lightside Jedi or a darkside Jedi. And a player plays his / her character as he / she wish, even a Force-user that think he / she can use darkside Force Pips, Powers or Talents without having a price to pay. Then that player will soon discover this behaviour is an highway to the darkside, the more use of the darkside the faster that destination is reached.

The changes to the Morality system to play grey Jedi are few and simple : no need to flip a destiny points to use darkside pips or lightside pip but  strain cost for each Force pips used darkside or lightside and conflict taken for each darkside pips used and one serenity taken for each lightside pips used. I use the serenity table found on this forum and I modified the Morality roll accordingly. So far it works well and smoothly to prevent characters to slide naturally toward lightside paragon.

Oh, go nuts! Even if I don't agree with your ideas, I've found them highly inspiring to my own views on the subject. So don't see it as I'm refuting your ideas as much as I'm bouncing off them to develop my own.

This thread has been one of the most interesting discussions on the topic, and your are due a good portion of the credit for that, so go on and pat yourself on the back for that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why award points of anything for lightside use?

That literally defeats the point of conflict. Conflict shouldn't disappear just because you use more force powers. Which can now happen, you just kill someone in cold blood? Just throw things around with move for a bit keeping it to just light pips and Walla your cured.

That's absurd, that's the opposite of how the force works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread has generated a lot more interest than I thought it would! I had no idea that so many people had such strong feelings on the Force, Morality, and the Gray Jedi. You've certainly given me a lot to discuss with my player(s) next time we meet up.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree that most people who want to play as Grey Jedi are really just trying to be edgelords and murderhobos, but I don't think that's this player's intent. I know him pretty well, and I think his goal here is more to create a character who wants to be good and live up to the legacy of his Jedi father, but finds it difficult to just cut ties with the culture that raised him (assuming he even wants to give up the Dark Side completely, which he's not sure he is). 

Anyway, I've taken the suggestions which have been presented so far and distilled them down into the following list of mechanics, which said player may or may not choose to implement around the gaming table. Mechanically, the "Gray Jedi" option could work in any of the following five ways (I'll let him choose which):

  1. As long as a PC's Morality falls between 45 and 55, that character may use Dark Side pips if they take 2 Strain (without needing to flip a Destiny Point as well).
  2. As long as a PC's Morality falls between 30 and 70, they generate one additional automatic Dark Side pip on every Force Check, this Dark Side pip can be used without flipping a Destiny Point and using it only incurs one Strain, but it is worth 2 Conflict, or doubles the Conflict of the action the player took within the scene, whichever is greater.
  3. The first time a PC uses a Dark Side pip in a given session is worth one Conflict, the second is worth two, the third is worth three, etc.
  4. As long as a PC's Morality falls between 45 and 55, that PC automatically contributes one Light Side Destiny Point and one Dark Side Destiny Point to the Destiny Pool at the beginning of each session, instead of rolling a Force Die.
  5. As long as a PC's Morality falls between 45 and 55, that PC can choose whether to use the Force as a Dark Side Force-user or a Light Side Force-user, and then pays the normal cost to use pips of the opposing color. For example, a PC tries to activate a Force Power that requires 3 Force Points; he rolls 2 Dark Side pips and 1 Light Side pip. The PC can opt to use the Dark Side pips at no cost, but still gains Strain and Conflict from using the remaining Light Side point (and vice-versa).

I think, ultimately, that if my player wants Brekan (the character in question) to walk the middle path between Light and Dark, then the first step would have to be embracing some of that darkness. Thus far he and my other player have chosen to walk the high road in almost all cases (helping the downtrodden, keeping their word, etc) and have achieved Light Side Paragon status as a result of those choices (and because of the way the Morality rules-as-written operate). But those are not the only choices Brekan could have made, and I intend to throw some difficult choices his way very soon; choices which will test his commitment to the Light Side, to the Jedi Order, and perhaps even to the Force itself. 😈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In between all this Light-side/Dark-side business, there's one very important thing to remember: there was no "Light side" until the Disney trilogy got started with The Force Awakens.  It was always "the Force" and "the Dark Side of the Force."

Some people have mentioned it here before, but being a "grey Jedi" between Light and Dark made no sense, because the Dark side was the Force out of balance.  If you're in balance, you're using "the Force."

Now, obviously, the new canon has changed this and there is now a "Light side," and so the concept makes a bit more sense.  But that's very new, so keep in mind when analyzing anything from episodes I - VI that the concept of the Force at its most basic was a lot different than we might think. 

 

A bit more on topic, I will admit that, when using the newer binary in a setting, I too prefer to walk the middle road.  If you're intent on keeping the Morality mechanic as given in the book, the best mechanical change I can offer is one that others have mentioned: remove the Destiny Point requirement for using black pips, while keeping the strain and Conflict costs.  It makes it less of a hit to the group's resources, and therefore an easier choice to make.  This helps tempt the player to the Dark side by making it easier to use, and also provides a concrete advantage to those who can stay neutral. 

However, if you're looking for alternatives to the Morality system, the one created by forum favorite Marcy (@Maelora) that I also use in my campaign works rather well, and allows characters to explore both the "Light" and "Dark" sides... of themselves, if not of the Force.   Let me know if you're interested and I can explain further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Absol197 said:

In between all this Light-side/Dark-side business, there's one very important thing to remember: there was no "Light side" until the Disney trilogy got started with The Force Awakens.  It was always "the Force" and "the Dark Side of the Force."

Some people have mentioned it here before, but being a "grey Jedi" between Light and Dark made no sense, because the Dark side was the Force out of balance.  If you're in balance, you're using "the Force."

Now, obviously, the new canon has changed this and there is now a "Light side," and so the concept makes a bit more sense.  But that's very new, so keep in mind when analyzing anything from episodes I - VI that the concept of the Force at its most basic was a lot different than we might think. 

 

A bit more on topic, I will admit that, when using the newer binary in a setting, I too prefer to walk the middle road.  If you're intent on keeping the Morality mechanic as given in the book, the best mechanical change I can offer is one that others have mentioned: remove the Destiny Point requirement for using black pips, while keeping the strain and Conflict costs.  It makes it less of a hit to the group's resources, and therefore an easier choice to make.  This helps tempt the player to the Dark side by making it easier to use, and also provides a concrete advantage to those who can stay neutral. 

However, if you're looking for alternatives to the Morality system, the one created by forum favorite Marcy (@Maelora) that I also use in my campaign works rather well, and allows characters to explore both the "Light" and "Dark" sides... of themselves, if not of the Force.   Let me know if you're interested and I can explain further. 

I’m interested in knowing more about that alternative system. 

...

I’d say that the effect you propose for Gray Jedi is too good. It’s probably better than being a Paragon of Light or Dark (maybe not, depending on how one valued the increase of Strain Threshold etc, but definitely better than the effect on the Destiny Pool). The balancing factor for spending a DP to use dark pips is not using up a (group) resource it’s having to use a resource that can only be used once per turn. Other Force users will have to make the calculation if they want to spend a DP to upgrade their Force Check or keep the DP available to spend Dark pips, the Gray Jedi gets to sidestep this consideration and gets the best of both worlds (they can upgrade the check and spend Dark pips). Seems like too much of an advantage in using the Force to me (falling into the min-max stereotype category of a Gray Jedi discussed earlier). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Absol197 said:

In between all this Light-side/Dark-side business, there's one very important thing to remember: there was no "Light side" until the Disney trilogy got started with The Force Awakens.  It was always "the Force" and "the Dark Side of the Force."

Some people have mentioned it here before, but being a "grey Jedi" between Light and Dark made no sense, because the Dark side was the Force out of balance.  If you're in balance, you're using "the Force."

Now, obviously, the new canon has changed this and there is now a "Light side," and so the concept makes a bit more sense.  But that's very new, so keep in mind when analyzing anything from episodes I - VI that the concept of the Force at its most basic was a lot different than we might think. 

 

A bit more on topic, I will admit that, when using the newer binary in a setting, I too prefer to walk the middle road.  If you're intent on keeping the Morality mechanic as given in the book, the best mechanical change I can offer is one that others have mentioned: remove the Destiny Point requirement for using black pips, while keeping the strain and Conflict costs.  It makes it less of a hit to the group's resources, and therefore an easier choice to make.  This helps tempt the player to the Dark side by making it easier to use, and also provides a concrete advantage to those who can stay neutral. 

However, if you're looking for alternatives to the Morality system, the one created by forum favorite Marcy (@Maelora) that I also use in my campaign works rather well, and allows characters to explore both the "Light" and "Dark" sides... of themselves, if not of the Force.   Let me know if you're interested and I can explain further. 

Balance of the force is a bit of a vague term.  It's one of those prophecy tropes where the prophecy can be interpreted several ways.

What is balance in the force?  An elimination of the dark side?  That doesn't seem balanced.  An elimination of both light and dark?  A total equality in the amount of light and dark side aligned force users?

If it's the last one, then Anakin did bring about a balance in the force.  Jedi far outnumbered sith.  The force was unbalanced, and Anakin balanced the scales.  At the end of the prequels we see 2 sith and 2 jedi.

True, the Jedi view balance as a lack of dark, but that seems unrealistic.  How do you have good without evil to judge it against?  Can you totally eliminate evil, or does something new just supplement the concept of evil.

The Jedi are proven to be incorrect, mistaken, and misguided many times through legends and canon material.  Their view of what balance is could be one of those things.

The new trilogy seems to explain the force as an ecosystem.  Life and death.  Peace and violence.  A tension that binds the universe in a delicate balance.  An ecosystem depends on both prey and predators to maintain a balance.  If either gets too numerous or too few, the imbalance causes chaos in the ecosystem.  Removal of the wolves in yellowstone negatively affected species they never preyed on, while causing illness to plague species they did prey on.  Their reintroduction has revitalized species of animals that were previously in decline.  It's caused prey species to become healthier through culling.  It caused species of plants to rebound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

Balance of the force is a bit of a vague term.  It's one of those prophecy tropes where the prophecy can be interpreted several ways.

What is balance in the force?  An elimination of the dark side?  That doesn't seem balanced.  An elimination of both light and dark?  A total equality in the amount of light and dark side aligned force users?

If it's the last one, then Anakin did bring about a balance in the force.  Jedi far outnumbered sith.  The force was unbalanced, and Anakin balanced the scales.  At the end of the prequels we see 2 sith and 2 jedi.

True, the Jedi view balance as a lack of dark, but that seems unrealistic.  How do you have good without evil to judge it against?  Can you totally eliminate evil, or does something new just supplement the concept of evil.

The Jedi are proven to be incorrect, mistaken, and misguided many times through legends and canon material.  Their view of what balance is could be one of those things.

The new trilogy seems to explain the force as an ecosystem.  Life and death.  Peace and violence.  A tension that binds the universe in a delicate balance.  An ecosystem depends on both prey and predators to maintain a balance.  If either gets too numerous or too few, the imbalance causes chaos in the ecosystem.  Removal of the wolves in yellowstone negatively affected species they never preyed on, while causing illness to plague species they did prey on.  Their reintroduction has revitalized species of animals that were previously in decline.  It's caused prey species to become healthier through culling.  It caused species of plants to rebound.

There is a major flaw in your logic here. There's an old saying: "Evil thrives when good men do nothing to stop it." This is why eliminating the Dark Side brings balance. Evil, by its very nature, consumes and destroys, bringing about imbalance. Darkness envelopes everything by its very nature unless a light is lit to push it back.  It requires constant vigilance for good to keep evil at bay. And while evil can never be completely vanquished, it can be held in check if, and only if good men actively fight against it. Thus, "Balance" in the Force and in the universe is where evil is contained, and thwarted. 

The relationship of predator and prey is not the same as that of good and evil. A wolf is not evil for killing a deer. It is only doing what is necessary to survive, and ultimately culls the weak from the ecosystem, and keeps the deer population from growing out of control. 

Edited by Tramp Graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LazerSwordsman said:

I had no idea that so many people had such strong feelings on the Force, Morality, and the Gray Jedi. 

You don't browse Star Wars chats and social networks much do you?  :P  

Joking aside, these 3 topics, often end up bleeding into each other in a discussion, are a very heated area of interest for Star Warsians.   It's not unique to Star Wars, as I stated a few times above, ANY game that has a morality mechanic to it, this same discussion always comes up, always.......always.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

What is balance in the force?  An elimination of the dark side?  That doesn't seem balanced.  An elimination of both light and dark?  A total equality in the amount of light and dark side aligned force users?

If it's the last one, then Anakin did bring about a balance in the force.  Jedi far outnumbered sith.  The force was unbalanced, and Anakin balanced the scales.  At the end of the prequels we see 2 sith and 2 jedi.

Well, there were  3 Sith (Maul was still around) along with numerous Jedi-in-hiding, a bunch of Inquisitors, and a bunch of Force-users that don't really care at all about Jedi and/or Sith (like the Bardottans). So, Anakin only balanced the scales from an ignorant point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

The new trilogy seems to explain the force as an ecosystem.  Life and death.  Peace and violence.  A tension that binds the universe in a delicate balance.  An ecosystem depends on both prey and predators to maintain a balance.  If either gets too numerous or too few, the imbalance causes chaos in the ecosystem.  Removal of the wolves in yellowstone negatively affected species they never preyed on, while causing illness to plague species they did prey on.  Their reintroduction has revitalized species of animals that were previously in decline.  It's caused prey species to become healthier through culling.  It caused species of plants to rebound.

You are exactly correct, and it's one of the few things in the new trilogy that I like - the move away from the strict binary of the struggle between Light and Dark to a more holistic view of the Force.  The things we see as "dark" are just as necessary and part of a healthy galaxy as the "light" things.

Which segues nicely into:

15 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I’m interested in knowing more about that alternative system. 

Sounds good!  @LazerSwordsman indicated they were also interested in hearing about it, so I'll explain it!  I'll use a spoiler tag, because it's long and I'm sure some of the people here are already familiar with the system.

So the origin of this system came from a similar issue regarding the Morality system, in that grading how upstanding you are with a sliding number scale didn't sit too well with everyone, and it made it difficult to explore all facets of a character.  And I like it because of my personal (clearly non-canon) take on the Force that the Force does not have sides.  The Force is the Force; it's people who have Light and Dark sides.

The gist of the system is as follows:
Characters do not have a Morality score.  Instead, they are in one of four "stances" or "alignments."  Those stances, and their mechanical effects, are as follows:

Light Paragon - Draws on white pips; counts as a Light-side Force user for Force powers and talents; cannot use talents or powers that generate automatic conflict (either per use or per session); +2 strain threshold; flip 1 Dark Side Destiny point to Light Side per scene.
Light - Draws on white pips; counts as a Light-side Force user for Force powers and talents; cannot use talents or powers that generate automatic conflict (either per use or per session).
Dark - Draws on black pips; counts as a Dark-side Force user for Force powers and talents.
Dark Paragon - Draws on black pips; counts as a Dark-side Force user for Force powers and talents; +2 wound threshold, -2 strain threshold; add 1 Dark Side Destiny Point to the pool per scene.

However, while characters are always in one of these four stances, they are not permanent.  A character can change which stance they're in multiple times per session, or they may not.  It all depends on the character's choices and actions.

Each character picks either Light or Dark stance to be their default - the one they return to at the start of each session, or when they've had a chance to decompress after a mission.  It's their standard, and follows generally the ideas that Star Wars has laid out.  Importantly, though, this is not a judgment.  If a character's default stance is Dark, it doesn't meant they're evil.  Only their actions and choices can determine that (although NPC Force-sensitives may not care about the distinction).

However, during play, if the character acts in a way that is strongly aligned with the opposite side of the Force, they can temporarily change to the opposite stance - someone who's typically Dark can become Light, and vice-versa.  The change lasts either until new actions change them back, or they have time to reset, reflect, rest, or otherwise revert themselves back to a neutral state.

But what about those Paragon stances?  Well, one Morality mechanic that is kept is the Emotional Strength and Weakness, although the Weakness is renamed "Passion," because of the attempt to avoid direct judgment of the Dark side as "bad."  If a character acts in a manner that is strongly tied to one side of the Force AND that is directly related to their Emotion for that side, then they switch to that specific Paragon stance.  This usually doesn't last for long, maybe a scene at most (which is why Paragons can have powerful effects on the Destiny pool without being broken).  For it to last multiple scenes, the character needs to continue to strongly act in accordance with that emotion.  Simply feeling really, REALLY angry isn't enough to stay Dark Paragon for multiple scenes, you need to act on that anger in a big way multiple scenes in a row.  Possible, but rare.

And that's basically it.  This allows characters to explore both sides of their personality, and allows them to make their journey to being fully committed to one side of the Force or another entirely narrative, instead of based on numbers.  If a character is struggling with their darkness, showing that they perform actions that change them to Dark stance less and less over the course of the game shows a path towards the Light (but they're always only one act away at all times, meaning that Yoda's statement about it being a life-long struggle in TCW is made real). 

It's helpful to have players that enjoy getting into their characters' heads and the RP aspect; it's not meant to be just a mechanical tool.

As some character examples:
There's a mirialan Guardian in Marcy's campaign who's primary character drive is her devotion to her wife.  Her emotional strength is Love, and her emotional passion is Obsession.  It's too big to say her personality changes when she changes stance, but how she expresses it certainly does.  When she's in a Light stance (which is also her default), she tends to be caring, nurturing, and giving - all of the positive aspects of love one might think of.  But in a dark stance, she's obsessive, over-protective, and patronizing - the selfish, negative aspects that love can bring out in people.  She's the same person, but everyone has those demons, those little faults they try to hide.

My own personal character that uses this system is my iconic character, Kemna Phel.  I won't go into all of the unnecessary details, but Kemna defaults to Light stance and has a strength of Compassion.  She is empathetic and caring, and tries her hardest to be a balm to the wounds of those around her, even when she's surrounded by hardship and mistreatment.  But when she sees too much hurt, she can flip to Dark stance, where her Passion is Cruelty.  She herself isn't necessarily cruel, but she changes her focus.  She no longer focuses on healing the hurts of those suffering hardship, but instead of punishing the cruel individuals for causing those hardship in the first place.  It's not helpful, but darn it, it's FAIR!

So that's that :) .  Let me know if you have any questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Absol197 said:

[snip]

I'll explain it!

[snip]

I really like this approach. Thanks for sharing it!

I want to know more about how the alignment/stance can change from one to another during a session. Can you give an example or two of actions or situations where a stance would flip, please.

Possibly related to that first question: how does Conflict factor in? Lights and Light Paragons cannot choose to use Talents or Powers that would generate automatic Conflict, but they could certainly do things, like murder or torture, that would earn some Conflict.

Can Lights/Paragons still use dark pips with the Destiny flip and Strain, and vice versa with the Darks/Paragons and light pips?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, RLogue177 said:

I really like this approach. Thanks for sharing it!

I want to know more about how the alignment/stance can change from one to another during a session. Can you give an example or two of actions or situations where a stance would flip, please.

Possibly related to that first question: how does Conflict factor in? Lights and Light Paragons cannot choose to use Talents or Powers that would generate automatic Conflict, but they could certainly do things, like murder or torture, that would earn some Conflict.

Can Lights/Paragons still use dark pips with the Destiny flip and Strain, and vice versa with the Darks/Paragons and light pips?

I'll answer your mechanical questions first, and then give some examples!

Conflict:  Conflict does not factor in.  Anything talent or power that grants Conflict counts as "Dark," meaning it can only be used in Dark stance.  But general actions that cause conflict don't do anything.  Although if the action is bad enough, it might cause a flip in stance to Dark.  So for instance, if someone in Light stance decides that the only way to deal with the prisoner they've captured is to kill them, that's probably a reason to flip to Dark stance.
Basically, to translate between the two systems, if it's an action that would generate 4+ Conflict, then the character should probably flip to Dark stance for doing it if they aren't already in it.

Force Die Pips:  Yes, Light-siders can use black pips and Dark-siders can use white.  The standard conversion rates apply - a Destiny Point, and 1 strain per pip used.  Note that this is the only exception to the "Light-siders can't use abilities that cause conflict" rule.  Using ONLY the wrong-color pips on a check might be a reason to flip stances, but it's not necessarily.  The reason the check is being made and the character's emotional state should also have some influence.  And using only black pips in Light stance should be more a reason to flip than using only white in Dark stance (although still not a 100% thing, as mentioned).
(As an aside, I like this because - based on my research on the pip-percentages - it does mean the Dark side is "quicker and easier" for low-power Force users; you can activate your basic Force powers much easier if you're in Dark stance, where you get useable points 58.33% of the time, which might show why it's so tempting to those who are untrained...)

As for some examples of flipping stance, let's see...

1.  The Twi'lek Sentinel Alema has the Passion of Coldness.  She grew up alone on the streets, and tends to be distrustful and closed off, and believes that people should be strong enough to handle their problems on their own - she has a default of Dark stance.  But when her wookiee companion Shorwarr lost his tribe and locked himself in his cabin, on her own initiative she broke in to the volatile wookiee's room to offer him comfort.  She would flip to Light stance here, as she's acting outside of her natural tendencies in a way that's aligned with the Light.

2.  The Verpine Padawan Survivor Wap tries his hardest to uphold the virtues of the Jedi, even in the dark times of the Empire - he defaults to a Light stance.  Even against enemies he tries to be as lenient and non-lethal as possible, although he will kill in order to protect himself and his allies.  However, when he finds CC-8791, the retired clone commander that betrayed his master, he forgets his training.  In the battle, he goes directly for the old clone and fights to kill.  On the first attack, he flips to Dark stance as he is acting on his negative emotion of anger, and his desire for revenge.

3.  Shorwarr, the Wookiee Seeker, draws from his furious anger to fuel the shamanistic power that he possesses - his base stance is Dark.  But when Alex, the human captain who saved him and to whom he swore a life-debt, is near death and under threat, he forgets the enemies that have injured him personally and leaps to Alex's defense, ignoring his own peril to save his friend.  This is in line with his Strength of Loyalty, as he is honoring his friend and his promise, no matter the personal cost.  He flips to Light Paragon stance, gaining the strain boost and causing a Dark Side Destiny point to immediately flip to Light Side.

4.  Kemna, the Togruta Mystic, is empathetic to everyone, and hates to see people in pain.  With her Compassion, her default stance is Light.  However, when she encounters the man who killed her brother, she snaps.  She gathers up all the pain, anguish, hardship, and loss that she and her family felt over those years and telepathically shoves it into the man's head, forcing him to feel ALL of that pain in an instant, mirroring his cruelty with Cruelty of her own.  She flips to Dark Paragon, gaining wound threshold but losing strain threshold, and adding a Dark Side Destiny point to the pool.

 

Do those help?  All except the last one are from the campaign I GMed for :) .

Edited by Absol197

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Absol197 said:

[snip]

Do those help?  All except the last one are from the campaign I GMed for :) .

Yeah, that's great stuff. Thanks! I hope you don't mind a follow up question or two.

You stay flipped until an action flips you back, or you meditate and reflect, or there's a lull between missions/scenes, or the next session begins. Is that correct? What makes a character want to flip back? Is it simply a role-playing aspect ("I'm light, I must find peace and return to the light."), or is there a penalty or consequence for staying flipped for too long ("You know, you spend an awful lot of time in the dark side. Maybe your stance should be dark instead of light?")?

Maybe "gray Jedi" in this system, to touch on the OP's topic here, are a fifth stance wherein the Force user isn't really concerned about their stance so much. They only flip when an action flips them. In addition, they still have to use a Destiny point to use the opposing pips, but they don't suffer the Strain hit because it doesn't bother them to do so. The downside is that gray people cannot reach the paragon stances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There is a major flaw in your logic here. There's an old saying: "Evil thrives when good men do nothing to stop it." This is why eliminating the Dark Side brings balance. Evil, by its very nature, consumes and destroys, bringing about imbalance. Darkness envelopes everything by its very nature unless a light is lit to push it back.  It requires constant vigilance for good to keep evil at bay. And while evil can never be completely vanquished, it can be held in check if, and only if good men actively fight against it. Thus, "Balance" in the Force and in the universe is where evil is contained, and thwarted. 

The relationship of predator and prey is not the same as that of good and evil. A wolf is not evil for killing a deer. It is only doing what is necessary to survive, and ultimately culls the weak from the ecosystem, and keeps the deer population from growing out of control. 

Look, I'm not taking sides here, just explaining possibilities.

Evil does thrive when good men do nothing, no arguement.  But the concept of utopias without evil is more fictional than the star wars universe as a whole.  You see, people are complicated.

How does one judge good without evil?  If you eliminated all violent crime, is evil gone?  No, greed, corruption, other lesser evil still exists.  Eliminate those and evil is gone?  No, the scale just slides again and now things like littering become evil.  Eliminate that and then what?  Not mowing your grass often enough becomes the standard of evil.  People need evil to exist to feel better about not being evil.  Clothing, dancing, various genres of music...heck, even RPGs were once the most evil and villified things around at various times by various groups. 

Beyond that, what one culture or one person views as evil, another views as commonplace and perhaps even reveres.  One person views eating animals, factory farms, etc to be evil, but gladly partakes in illegal drugs that drive crime, death, destruction, and evil in another place.  Another person views drug use as evil while happily eating cows and chickens that were treated inhumanely.

There is no way to eliminate evil.  Eliminate one drug dealer and his territory will just be taken over by another.  Clear the crime out of one section of a city and it will just find a new place to reside.  Jail one corrupt business man and another will take it's place.

 One way or the other, evil will always exist.  Either we move the bar and create a new definition of evil, or one evil is just replaced by another evil.

Also, good and evil is very much like prey and predator.  The good are the prey.  Innocent, trusting, honest.  The evil are the predators.  They seek out the most innocent, most trusting, and they strike.  They lie, they rob, they steal, they hurt, they kill.  If a culture becomes too good, too trusting, too innocent, they become weaker, less likely to see the evil, less likely to react to it.  Think of a community devoid of evil.  No crime, no corruption.  No reason to lock doors, or not trust someone coming to their door.  Now imagine how that looks to someone that is evil.  Someone from within that community will see the opportunity, or someone from outside will find this community.  Without anyone to resist, the community as a whole is ripe for the picking.  It would be like having a community of prairie dogs that don't communicate with one another, or hide from movement.  A coyote will find this community and those prairie dogs will be wiped out.  But a constant ongoing threat of coyotes keep the prairie dogs on their toes, ready to call out to others, react to the threat, and to save themselves from the predator.

In a way, this is the story behind Star Wars.  The republic was formed, everyone had a say in the system, and times were good.  The Jedi thrived, peace spread, lives were improved.  Good thrived, and even the Jedi had no reason to question this as they saw this as balance.  But balanced against what?  Imagine good and evil as a seesaw with good and evil on opposite sides.  If good is higher than evil, there isn't balance.  This amount of good allowed evil to take an unmitigated hold on the universe.  They allowed this to happen right under their noses.  They had no reason to question what their leadership was doing, because their leadership must be good.  They had no reason to question why this wonderful army fell into their laps, because clearly no one would do anything bad, corrupt, or for their own greed.

Good thrived, but just like an unchecked population of prey animals, they became easy targets.  Disease corrupts the population from within, just like greed and corruption did in the Republic.  Predators attack from outside, just like the separatists did to the Republic.

The Jedi and the Republic were simply too effective, and created a civilization ripe for destruction by evil.

Does that mean one needs to stop fighting against evil?  No, that would allow Evil to get too powerful.  This is the story of the original trilogy.  The predators ate until they were beyond full, and their food became scarce, and they were affected by disease, and they died off, allowing the prey to rise in number again.

Neither good nor evil can be balanced by eliminated the other.  They need one another to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RLogue177 said:

Yeah, that's great stuff. Thanks! I hope you don't mind a follow up question or two.

You stay flipped until an action flips you back, or you meditate and reflect, or there's a lull between missions/scenes, or the next session begins. Is that correct? What makes a character want to flip back? Is it simply a role-playing aspect ("I'm light, I must find peace and return to the light."), or is there a penalty or consequence for staying flipped for too long ("You know, you spend an awful lot of time in the dark side. Maybe your stance should be dark instead of light?")?

Maybe "gray Jedi" in this system, to touch on the OP's topic here, are a fifth stance wherein the Force user isn't really concerned about their stance so much. They only flip when an action flips them. In addition, they still have to use a Destiny point to use the opposing pips, but they don't suffer the Strain hit because it doesn't bother them to do so. The downside is that gray people cannot reach the paragon stances.

 

Not at all!

You are correct about the reasons why a character might flip stances again - a new action changes their stance, or they have some downtime and reset to their default state.  Why they might want to flip back, though, is entirely dependent on the character.  Some characters, especially Jedi or Sith, might have a strong philosophical alignment to one side or the other, and would want to return to the "right" side as soon as possible.  Others may just not like how they feel when they're on the side they don't default to.  To take Aleyna, the mirialan Guardian I mentioned in my first post, as an example, she doesn't like herself when she's in Dark stance, how clingy and jealous she gets, so when she stays too long in that stance she wants to get out, even if she recognizes that it gives her several advantages.  Others may just not want to be without their iconic powers (Heal, Protect on others / conflict talents, Harm, Unleash) for too long, and "re-center" themselves to allow access to those abilities again.

Although your idea of a character changing default stance if they spend too long on the opposite side of the Force is absolutely a thing.  It could just be the GM noticing that the character is technically Light, but is spending so much time Dark anyway that they tell the player, "Hey, if this keeps up, a change in default stance may be in order."  Or it could be a purposeful part of the character's arc, where either they're trying to change their default stance, or it changes without their notice (but entirely intentionally on the player's part), like a slow descent into darkness.

 

As for "grey Jedi," it depends on what exactly you mean.  If you mean someone who uses the Dark side while still being a force for good, then that's already available.  Have Dark be your default stance, but still be a hero.  Boom, done!  If you instead mean someone who uses both sides of the Force equally, that's fairly easy, too - just have a character that either intentionally or unintentionally constantly changes stances to keep themselves "balanced" between the two.

However, I did come up with a concept of a "neutral" stance as well, but it was a bit too complicated to add in to the regular system, so I consider it an add-on :) .  If you're using "Neutral" stance, that is every Force-character's default stance, although they still choose Light or Dark to determine which pips they draw on naturally.  While in Neutral stance, you don't count as either a Light-side or Dark-side Force user.  You can use Conflict-generating abilities normally, although for powers like Heal/Harm and Protect/Unleash, getting the full benefit will be hard if the power is aligned to the other side of your neutral (i.e. if in neutral you draw on white pips, it'll be hard to get the full effect from Harm).

And then things continue as normal - if you take an action that would make you full Light or Dark, or would make you a Paragon, then you change to those stances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

Look, I'm not taking sides here, just explaining possibilities.

Evil does thrive when good men do nothing, no arguement.  But the concept of utopias without evil is more fictional than the star wars universe as a whole.  You see, people are complicated.

How does one judge good without evil?  If you eliminated all violent crime, is evil gone?  No, greed, corruption, other lesser evil still exists.  Eliminate those and evil is gone?  No, the scale just slides again and now things like littering become evil.  Eliminate that and then what?  Not mowing your grass often enough becomes the standard of evil.  People need evil to exist to feel better about not being evil.  Clothing, dancing, various genres of music...heck, even RPGs were once the most evil and villified things around at various times by various groups. 

Beyond that, what one culture or one person views as evil, another views as commonplace and perhaps even reveres.  One person views eating animals, factory farms, etc to be evil, but gladly partakes in illegal drugs that drive crime, death, destruction, and evil in another place.  Another person views drug use as evil while happily eating cows and chickens that were treated inhumanely.

There is no way to eliminate evil.  Eliminate one drug dealer and his territory will just be taken over by another.  Clear the crime out of one section of a city and it will just find a new place to reside.  Jail one corrupt business man and another will take it's place.

 One way or the other, evil will always exist.  Either we move the bar and create a new definition of evil, or one evil is just replaced by another evil.

Also, good and evil is very much like prey and predator.  The good are the prey.  Innocent, trusting, honest.  The evil are the predators.  They seek out the most innocent, most trusting, and they strike.  They lie, they rob, they steal, they hurt, they kill.  If a culture becomes too good, too trusting, too innocent, they become weaker, less likely to see the evil, less likely to react to it.  Think of a community devoid of evil.  No crime, no corruption.  No reason to lock doors, or not trust someone coming to their door.  Now imagine how that looks to someone that is evil.  Someone from within that community will see the opportunity, or someone from outside will find this community.  Without anyone to resist, the community as a whole is ripe for the picking.  It would be like having a community of prairie dogs that don't communicate with one another, or hide from movement.  A coyote will find this community and those prairie dogs will be wiped out.  But a constant ongoing threat of coyotes keep the prairie dogs on their toes, ready to call out to others, react to the threat, and to save themselves from the predator.

In a way, this is the story behind Star Wars.  The republic was formed, everyone had a say in the system, and times were good.  The Jedi thrived, peace spread, lives were improved.  Good thrived, and even the Jedi had no reason to question this as they saw this as balance.  But balanced against what?  Imagine good and evil as a seesaw with good and evil on opposite sides.  If good is higher than evil, there isn't balance.  This amount of good allowed evil to take an unmitigated hold on the universe.  They allowed this to happen right under their noses.  They had no reason to question what their leadership was doing, because their leadership must be good.  They had no reason to question why this wonderful army fell into their laps, because clearly no one would do anything bad, corrupt, or for their own greed.

Good thrived, but just like an unchecked population of prey animals, they became easy targets.  Disease corrupts the population from within, just like greed and corruption did in the Republic.  Predators attack from outside, just like the separatists did to the Republic.

The Jedi and the Republic were simply too effective, and created a civilization ripe for destruction by evil.

Does that mean one needs to stop fighting against evil?  No, that would allow Evil to get too powerful.  This is the story of the original trilogy.  The predators ate until they were beyond full, and their food became scarce, and they were affected by disease, and they died off, allowing the prey to rise in number again.

Neither good nor evil can be balanced by eliminated the other.  They need one another to exist.

It's not that they need each other to exist. In fact, without Good, Evil wins and dominates everything, bringing ruin to all, just as without Light, Darkness reigns supreme. We both agree that neither Evil nor Darkness can ever be fully destroyed. Good and light only push them back and  hold them at bay. Balance is maintained when evil is contained and prevented from thriving. The balance of light and dark is not grey, nor is the balance between good and evil a morally "neutral" stance. Good and evil are not 

As for the predator and prey analogy, no, it is not the same thing. a predator is not inherently evil, nor is prey inherently innocent and good. In fact, without predators, the prey animals would multiply out of control and strip their environment of all vegetation, resulting in starvation, or disease would spread unchecked throughout the population. Either way, it brings ruin to all. In that sense, Predators are good for the prey. Predators are necessary, not as a means of keeping the prey on its toes, but to keep the prey population in check so that it doesn't get out of control. By the same token, the predators cannot survive without their prey. If they over hunt their food supply, they will starve. This is why (at least on land), the "balance" is a pyramid with large number of prey animals and a small number of predators at the top. It's not an even number of each side. 

The same with the balance between good and evil. When evil is held in check, with only a small fraction of evil-doers, and good thriving, there is balance. When evil matches or exceeds  good in size or power, then there is imbalance. There is only balance when good contains evil. There is only balance when light pushes back the darkness leaving only shadows here and there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's not that they need each other to exist. In fact, without Good, Evil wins and dominates everything, bringing ruin to all, just as without Light, Darkness reigns supreme. We both agree that neither Evil nor Darkness can ever be fully destroyed. Good and light only push them back and  hold them at bay. Balance is maintained when evil is contained and prevented from thriving. The balance of light and dark is not grey, nor is the balance between good and evil a morally "neutral" stance. Good and evil are not 

As for the predator and prey analogy, no, it is not the same thing. a predator is not inherently evil, nor is prey inherently innocent and good. In fact, without predators, the prey animals would multiply out of control and strip their environment of all vegetation, resulting in starvation, or disease would spread unchecked throughout the population. Either way, it brings ruin to all. In that sense, Predators are good for the prey. Predators are necessary, not as a means of keeping the prey on its toes, but to keep the prey population in check so that it doesn't get out of control. By the same token, the predators cannot survive without their prey. If they over hunt their food supply, they will starve. This is why (at least on land), the "balance" is a pyramid with large number of prey animals and a small number of predators at the top. It's not an even number of each side. 

The same with the balance between good and evil. When evil is held in check, with only a small fraction of evil-doers, and good thriving, there is balance. When evil matches or exceeds  good in size or power, then there is imbalance. There is only balance when good contains evil. There is only balance when light pushes back the darkness leaving only shadows here and there. 

 

You're right in that predators are not evil.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that evil is a predator.  And that good are the prey.  When you look at it that way I think you will see the analogy.

I'm not saying there needs to be an equal number of jedi and sith.  But you have to admit that the numbers were no where near sustainable.  The good of the republic and jedi allowed corruption to flourish, allowed a secret army to be constructed, allowed outlying worlds to suffer.  Good had risen to such a level that no one considered or believed that there could be major evil anymore...so much so that not a single one of the protectors of good could even suspect that they were being manipulated by the greatest evil in the galaxy.  Not even the separatists could see how they were being manipulated by people that clearly allied themselves with the Sith.

Had the Sith been some persistent threat to the galaxy however, I'd argue that the Jedi, and perhaps the Republic would have been more vigilant.

There was too much prey, and not enough predators.  This allowed disease (corruption) to flourish, weakening the prey species, and made them a prime target for the predators that no one saw coming.

Balance is strength.  The Republic and the Jedi were clearly not strong otherwise they could have stood to resist the Evil that faced them.

If you want to push the concept further in the movies, follow Anakin beyond Ep 3.  Consider the state of affairs at the end of Ep 6.  In Ep 1 you had tons of Jedi and a few sith.  In Ep 4 you had a couple jedi and a couple sith.  By the end of Ep 6 you have 1 jedi (self proclaimed at that).  If Anakin was the prophecy, then the balance was a lack of either strong ideology.  Lucas even backs this up by stating this exact fact.  Anakin brought about balance by killing the emperor (and killing Obi, and letting Yoda die of old age, and dying himself).  The death of the last two sith lords brought about a balance in the force.  But strangely that balance didn't seem to be an end to evil as there still was evil (slavery, crime, etc).  And the Jedi were basically as extinct as the Sith.  The elimination of both the Jedi and the Sith is what brought balance.

You see, the argument isn't about what the Jedi thought balance was.  We know that, they state that clear as day.  If the Jedi point at a fire hydrant and call it a unicorn though, it doesn't make it a unicorn.  They defined what they thought balance was.  The question is what the actual balance was.

If Anakin was the chosen one that would bring balance to the force, and he indeed succeeded in this task, then it would seem that the Jedi may have been incorrect in their belief of what balance meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

You're right in that predators are not evil.  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that evil is a predator.  And that good are the prey.  When you look at it that way I think you will see the analogy.

I'm not saying there needs to be an equal number of jedi and sith.  But you have to admit that the numbers were no where near sustainable.  The good of the republic and jedi allowed corruption to flourish, allowed a secret army to be constructed, allowed outlying worlds to suffer.  Good had risen to such a level that no one considered or believed that there could be major evil anymore...so much so that not a single one of the protectors of good could even suspect that they were being manipulated by the greatest evil in the galaxy.  Not even the separatists could see how they were being manipulated by people that clearly allied themselves with the Sith.

Had the Sith been some persistent threat to the galaxy however, I'd argue that the Jedi, and perhaps the Republic would have been more vigilant.

There was too much prey, and not enough predators.  This allowed disease (corruption) to flourish, weakening the prey species, and made them a prime target for the predators that no one saw coming.

Balance is strength.  The Republic and the Jedi were clearly not strong otherwise they could have stood to resist the Evil that faced them.

If you want to push the concept further in the movies, follow Anakin beyond Ep 3.  Consider the state of affairs at the end of Ep 6.  In Ep 1 you had tons of Jedi and a few sith.  In Ep 4 you had a couple jedi and a couple sith.  By the end of Ep 6 you have 1 jedi (self proclaimed at that).  If Anakin was the prophecy, then the balance was a lack of either strong ideology.  Lucas even backs this up by stating this exact fact.  Anakin brought about balance by killing the emperor (and killing Obi, and letting Yoda die of old age, and dying himself).  The death of the last two sith lords brought about a balance in the force.  But strangely that balance didn't seem to be an end to evil as there still was evil (slavery, crime, etc).  And the Jedi were basically as extinct as the Sith.  The elimination of both the Jedi and the Sith is what brought balance.

You see, the argument isn't about what the Jedi thought balance was.  We know that, they state that clear as day.  If the Jedi point at a fire hydrant and call it a unicorn though, it doesn't make it a unicorn.  They defined what they thought balance was.  The question is what the actual balance was.

If Anakin was the chosen one that would bring balance to the force, and he indeed succeeded in this task, then it would seem that the Jedi may have been incorrect in their belief of what balance meant.

No. I'd say evil is a disease. It's a parasyte, not a predator. Destroy the disease, destroy the parasyte and you have balance.

The Republic was not weakened because of a lack of enough evil. It was weakened by corruption from within; not because there was a lack of an external threat, but because of complacency. The lack of "balance" in the prequel era wasn't because of too many Jedi and not enough Sith. It was that the Dark Side was ascending unchecked under the very noses of those intended to keep it in check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. I'd say evil is a disease. It's a parasyte, not a predator. Destroy the disease, destroy the parasyte and you have balance.

The Republic was not weakened because of a lack of enough evil. It was weakened by corruption from within; not because there was a lack of an external threat, but because of complacency. The lack of "balance" in the prequel era wasn't because of too many Jedi and not enough Sith. It was that the Dark Side was ascending unchecked under the very noses of those intended to keep it in check. 

You're making my argument now.

According to the dictionary, complacency is self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.  The lack of any great danger (sith) allowed the republic and the jedi to grow complacent.  This complacency, or lack of vigilance/awareness allowed evil to grow within the Republic as corruption.

The lack of evil adversaries allowed evil to arise within their own organization.  By suppressing evil (predator) to such a degree, new evil (disease) reared it's head as corruption from within.  One way or another, evil will exist.  You can't eradicate it as the Jedi thought.  It's easier to keep said balance (or control of the situation) by maintaining an easy to target evil that keeps you vigilant to all threats.

Your definition of evil as a disease again agrees with my premise.  Disease is caused by organisms within the body.  These organism, both good and bad are in balance.  When one gets out of balance, disease is the result.  Eradication of these organisms to either extreme will cause more disease.

Your analogy of a parasite matches that of the Jedi belief of balance.  And a great analogy it is.  Again, no argument in their belief.  Just not sure that the star wars universe (or ours for that matter) backs up their belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

You're making my argument now.

According to the dictionary, complacency is self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.  The lack of any great danger (sith) allowed the republic and the jedi to grow complacent.  This complacency, or lack of vigilance/awareness allowed evil to grow within the Republic as corruption.

The lack of evil adversaries allowed evil to arise within their own organization.  By suppressing evil (predator) to such a degree, new evil (disease) reared it's head as corruption from within.  One way or another, evil will exist.  You can't eradicate it as the Jedi thought.  It's easier to keep said balance (or control of the situation) by maintaining an easy to target evil that keeps you vigilant to all threats.

Your definition of evil as a disease again agrees with my premise.  Disease is caused by organisms within the body.  These organism, both good and bad are in balance.  When one gets out of balance, disease is the result.  Eradication of these organisms to either extreme will cause more disease.

Your analogy of a parasite matches that of the Jedi belief of balance.  And a great analogy it is.  Again, no argument in their belief.  Just not sure that the star wars universe (or ours for that matter) backs up their belief. 

There was still evil and other external threats in the galaxy during the height of the Republic that the Jedi had to deal with. The only thing not visibly active was the Sith. So a "lack of evil" to face was not what caused the Republic to become complacent. 

Secondly, a balance of equal amounts of good and bad organisms is not what results in health and an overall balance of the body. What results in a healthy body is when there are only good organisms within it, and any bad ones are eradicated or, at the very least kept firmly in check and to a minimum so that they don't cause harm. The same is true of evil. Evil must be eradicated, or at least held in check,  to have a healthy society. A parasyte does nothing to benefit its host. It simply destroys it. Evil does nothing to help society. It simply destroys it, and if not constantly fought will destroy all. Thus, the balance is when Evil, be it internal or external, is contained or eliminated, and good maintains a constant vigil against it resurging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about the Dark Side is that Lucas described it as Cancer. I scoffed at that definition years ago, but after receiving scientific training since then it made a good deal of sense to me; the cancer is born of the body (the force) but it is holy unwanted and unstable in that it will rapidly replicate to consume all the space available whether it is healthy or not, it's original function and purpose forgotten in it's twisted DNA. It's corruptive influence rapidly finding a strong hold in the healthy organs of the being like an immortal parasite that cannot be eradicated or reasoned with. All it wants to do is replicate regardless of the costs and would happily kill the organism it is a part of by simply displacing and rendering the tissues ineffective by growing relentlessly where it isn't wanted. So in a sense yes, the Dark Side is born of the force and that it couldn't have existed if the force (and force sensitives by extension) hadn't existed first, but by it's very nature it is an abnormality that must be purged, otherwise it will displace everything in it's relentless chase of true immortality. 

At the very least, that is how my character perceives it. He was so close to becoming that cancer, yet due to circumstance, being abandoned by his lack of ambition and ultimately finding a better way, he is the white blood cell for a lack of better analogy that is attempting to purge the infection, just if he loses too much of himself in doing so, then he will lose himself and become a rapid cancer cell that becomes only concerned by growing greater and it's own survival. To me, no other definition of the Star Wars universe makes sense.

That being said, I'm not a star wars fan, I just play a star wars game. So what the current status quo is of the force doesn't really bother me. I would really love to play in a setting where good and evil just the extremes of definition, rather then the rule that it goes by, so alternative universes where the definitions differ would be a breath of fresh air. In particular, the stance system described by @Absol197 does sound interesting, and it would be interesting to create a homebrewed setting without the expectations of Star Wars where such a system could be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is something to the Jedi being complacent regarding the Sith because the Sith were not in there faces as it were (and hadn’t been for a thousand years). Mace Windu seems awfully incredulous that the Sith could have returned without being noticed. 

I don’t think this is related to the “balance” in the Force.

Though if Jedi (like Qui-gon) were wondering- hopeful? - that Anakin would be the chosen one and bring balance what threat were they hoping he’d balance? Maybe that swayed the council to let him be trained (after the Sith were known to be “back”). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...