In RotJ, one of the main points was that Luke could simply kneel, call Vader or the Emperor "Master", and be done with it. The fact that he did not was what made him a hero.

In my game the Paragon Force user was in a tight situation. Having been captured by a bunch of people intent on resurrecting the very ancient Sith Empire and traditions (from before the Rule of 2), he was "invited" to have a chat and lunch with a Lady of the Sith. After the meal, wherein three "civilians" were brought in to share their experiences as "citizens" of this new Sith government, he was given the option to kneel before the Lady and acknowledge her as "My Mistress".

I had entirely expected he would refuse: the good guys always, must always refuse. There was going to be this terrible scene of demands and refusals, with the Sith getting angry and doing horrible things to the character. He was going to be killed and then brought back by the Force Harm power (at the cost of the old man who had come for lunch and a bit of reminiscing, naturally). This would have gained him 10 conflict and a vacation in a nearby bacta tank. He would then endure other things in future sessions so that his decline and eventual acceptance of this Lady as his Mistress would be a natural evolution of the broken man.

But no, at the first opportunity, he kneels and says, "I am your servant, my Mistress."

Discussion: How much conflict is that worth? His argument was that he couldn't go anywhere and refusal was likely to get innocent people killed and not really net him anything. On the other hand, whether he is lying or not he will be willingly following down a dark path.

Certainly there will be tests and horrifying things in his future, but I want to discuss this one point in time.

(NB: I gave him 5 conflict for it, because I feel he was giving in, acting from fear and despair. This topic is for discussion and is somewhat academic.)

I'd think ... ALL the conflict.

Is he just giving in to the dark side?

On the other hand, I have often thought that this:

"Yes I'll serve you, in fact as soon as you un-shackle me I'll be happy to serve you forever and ever and I certainly won't betray you for the good guys as soon as you've released me!"

would be tactically better than this:

"No I'll never serve you no matter how much you keep torturing me!"

On the other hand, I have often thought that this:

"Yes I'll serve you, in fact as soon as you un-shackle me I'll be happy to serve you forever and ever and I certainly won't betray you for the good guys as soon as you've released me!"

would be tactically better than this:

"No I'll never serve you no matter how much you keep torturing me!"

Because the Sith aren't really the trusting type, the first thing I'd have the turncoat do is a test of loyalty ("oh look, we just happen to have a captured Jedi Knight here. Kill him.").

I'd say it's fine what he did. If he's not just straight joining the dark side, then what he did was a reasonable act of preservation, and probably doesn't deserve any conflict.

If he was joining the dark side, then 5 conflict is probably alright since it's still kind of a big deal, but he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong quite yet.

0 Conflict. Being tortured doesn't give you Conflict, unless you give into the Dark Side. A darksider murdering someone to save you doesn't generate Conflict unless you somehow cooperate in the act. Saying you'll join a darksider also generates 0 Conflict if you're playing for time or trying to trick them.

The real issue is what comes next when the darksiders test the Jedi's commitment and that's going to be next on the agenda. The typical choice in these kinds of situations is something you can't come back from. Palpatine had Anakin slaughter the younglings in the Jedi Temple and while there may not be a bunch of Jedi kids lying around to conveniently murder, whatever is asked for is going to leave blood on the lightsider's hands. This is where Conflict happens.

I'd say it's fine what he did. If he's not just straight joining the dark side, then what he did was a reasonable act of preservation, and probably doesn't deserve any conflict.

If he was joining the dark side, then 5 conflict is probably alright since it's still kind of a big deal, but he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong quite yet.

Yes, this is where the GM (me) is conflicted. Technically, he hasn't done much anything at all, but symbolically, perhaps even spiritually (?), he's done a huge thing. Internally, he must feel some conflict - even if he's really just biding his time, and that is why I gave him the points.

On the other hand, I have often thought that this:

"Yes I'll serve you, in fact as soon as you un-shackle me I'll be happy to serve you forever and ever and I certainly won't betray you for the good guys as soon as you've released me!"

would be tactically better than this:

"No I'll never serve you no matter how much you keep torturing me!"

Because the Sith aren't really the trusting type, the first thing I'd have the turncoat do is a test of loyalty ("oh look, we just happen to have a captured Jedi Knight here. Kill him.").

Oh, no. No, no, no. That's much too easy, what he'll have to go through will be far worse.

Another Jedi? They practically signed up for this - I mean, if he's been captured and given to you to kill he's as good as dead already.

It'll be more like, "See this woman, holding her child? Don't worry, the child will be looked after, nurtured, and taught the true ways of the Force. As for the woman..."

A darksider murdering someone to save you doesn't generate Conflict unless you somehow cooperate in the act.

Actually, using the Harm Force Power to resurrect a character does indeed generate 10 conflict for the resurrected character (actually, for both characters). It's the only power I know of that generates conflict for someone else.

A darksider murdering someone to save you doesn't generate Conflict unless you somehow cooperate in the act.

Actually, using the Harm Force Power to resurrect a character does indeed generate 10 conflict for the resurrected character (actually, for both characters). It's the only power I know of that generates conflict for someone else.

Before it's asked, the conflict is because of the perverse nature of pulling a soul back from the dead back into its body that the person on the receiving end gets the Conflict.

Technically this is a lot like Luke in the Dark Empire comics. He still turned to the darkside, but he did it out of "good intentions". Honestly? Willingly turning to the darkside is just that. a 29 morality. I feel that is what Anakin did too. He dropped his morality in order to embrace the darkside. Then Palps had him murder a bunch of kids to get it down to a 1 (netting Anakin the -2 strain threshold and the Sith Eyes)

If your player willingly drops his morality, so be it. Let him then struggle to get it back up to a 70. THAT is what he did, symbolically. Instant Darksider.

A darksider murdering someone to save you doesn't generate Conflict unless you somehow cooperate in the act.

Actually, using the Harm Force Power to resurrect a character does indeed generate 10 conflict for the resurrected character (actually, for both characters). It's the only power I know of that generates conflict for someone else.

Before it's asked, the conflict is because of the perverse nature of pulling a soul back from the dead back into its body that the person on the receiving end gets the Conflict.

Eh, lightside can do it and they don't get conflict. I would say that they gain conflict through the siphoning of another's soul.

Eh, lightside can do it and they don't get conflict. I would say that they gain conflict through the siphoning of another's soul.

Heal and Harm are vastly different in the respect of reviving. Heal can only be done within 1 turn of the player dying, and the book specifically states that if revived, the player was never technically dead, just that they were in an incredibly sever state. Whereas Harm can be done at absolutely any point in an encounter (so if the player died 30 turns ago in the encounter - they can STILL be brought back), and is specifically returning the soul to the body.

Yes, and Harm requires another to die in order to resurrect the dead. I suspect this is where at least some of the tranferred conflict comes from - that character's internal struggle to deal with the fact that they are alive because someone else was murdered to make it happen. I could see that really messing with someone's head.

Discussion: How much conflict is that worth? His argument was that he couldn't go anywhere and refusal was likely to get innocent people killed and not really net him anything. On the other hand, whether he is lying or not he will be willingly following down a dark path.

I think you have done nothing more than begin the gaming of the conflict and you are trying to award conflict before the situation has been played out to conclussion. The fact your player is arguing the matter also makes me beleive he hasn't provided you a social contract to buy into the matter either.

To go from Paragon to Dark Side may be something you and the player want to play out, but to get to 70 Morality that player gave up his bonus XP/Money and isn't something you take away easily and lightly.

Conflict in Star Wars is often about a good choice and a bad choice, there is little conflict to be had in a bad choice and a worse choice. In fact facing that situation should give little or no conflict if the player choses the bad choice as it was the lesser of two evils.

These feels "railroady" to me. Look at the Aniken v Lord Dooku duel and how it ends, compare this to Darth Vader and Luke and how it ends. That is conflict that displays choice.

On the other hand, you could argue that a choice between "bad" and "good" is not really a choice at all... "good" is obviously the way to go.

Whereas a choice between two different things, each of which has good elements and bad elements, can actually prove to be a dilemma.

Anakin knew that Dooku was very dangerous, so removing him from the conflict would be good. He also felt anger and hatred toward Dooku, and satisfying those feelings would feel good. However he knew that to kill an unarmed man was not the Jedi way, and would be bad.

Leaving Dooku alive would allow for the possibility of his escape, and prevent an end to the Clone Wars. This would be bad. But to capture rather than kill him would be good.

He just chose the side which ended up having a net "bad" for the Galaxy. From his perspective, it wasn't as clear-cut, though.

It is similar with Luke, Vader and the Emperor. To strike down the Emperor would remove his evil from the Galaxy. That would be good. To kill in cold blood would be bad. He also felt anger and hatred towards the Emperor for the trap he set for Luke's friends. To give in to that would feel good.

To let the Emperor live would allow for the possibility that the Empire would continue. This would be bad. He'd also probably kill Luke. This would be bad. But to stay true to his Jedi ideals and refuse to fight in anger would be good.

Luke chose the side with the net "good" for the Galaxy.

That's one way to look at it, at least.

Yes the Jedi gains the 10 Conflict for being immersed in the Dark Side from the evil resurrection (not my favorite rule, but I understand why it's there) but not any Conflict for heinous murder unless he's a willing participant.

Conflict is there to represent choice and its consequences in a universe where there is a Force which has a Light Side and a Dark Side. It shouldn't not be a tool for GM's to beat their players with via railroads.

So a mistress eeeeeeh!!! Your player knows what he likes

Next time put an ugly guy clad in black armour from toe to head and there won't be temptation

But no, at the first opportunity, he kneels and says, "I am your servant, my Mistress."

Discussion: How much conflict is that worth? His argument was that he couldn't go anywhere and refusal was likely to get innocent people killed and not really net him anything. On the other hand, whether he is lying or not he will be willingly following down a dark path.

The Sith are founded on the casual dismissal of oaths ... Every acolyte expects to one day betray and replace their master. Whilst the motivation may be noble in the character's mind, the act of taking an oath shackles him to a future.

Think of it this way - by kneeling and submitting, he gave legitimacy to the villain. He acknowledged her actions and words had power. Now, he says he did this to prevent suffering, but that's fear. He didn't know there would be suffering done by the innocents, he feared there would be suffering. Even if there had been, the people subjected themselves to that through their belief in the society that they had built with the villian, and moreover, the villain was one doing the torture, to which he had no control. Instead of witnessing the action as an observer, and thus keeping his opinion separate, he engaged in the actions, and thus gave his acceptance of the practice.

My first impulse would be to ask the player if his character means what he's saying or if he's just bluffing. If he's bluffing I wouldn't give him any Conflict but he'd have to make a pretty tough Deception check to sell the lie. If he meant it, it would be an instant 11 Conflict. Why 11? Because that would ensure that his Morality dropped at the end of that session, to illustrate that he was willingly agreeing to serve the Dark side.

Of course, after that I'd be doing what papy72 said: throw test after test at him and constantly put him in a position where he would be forced to demonstrate his new allegiance by earning more Conflict. That's what any reasonably intelligent Darksider would do. The whole "infiltrate the Dark side and bring it down from within"-ploy never works.

After the meal, wherein three "civilians" were brought in to share their experiences as "citizens" of this new Sith government, he was given the option to kneel before the Lady and acknowledge her as "My Mistress".

I had entirely expected he would refuse: the good guys always, must always refuse. There was going to be this terrible scene of demands and refusals, with the Sith getting angry and doing horrible things to the character. He was going to be killed and then brought back by the Force Harm power (at the cost of the old man who had come for lunch and a bit of reminiscing, naturally). This would have gained him 10 conflict and a vacation in a nearby bacta tank. He would then endure other things in future sessions so that his decline and eventual acceptance of this Lady as his Mistress would be a natural evolution of the broken man.

Looks incredibly heavy-handed to me. Your player did what I expect most players would do, especially with innocents nearby. Morality mechanic kinda loses a lot of meaning without the element of choice.

On the other hand, you could argue that a choice between "bad" and "good" is not really a choice at all... "good" is obviously the way to go.

Whereas a choice between two different things, each of which has good elements and bad elements, can actually prove to be a dilemma.

His examples are a bit backwards, but those two sentences up there are pure win.

Looks incredibly heavy-handed to me. Your player did what I expect most players would do, especially with innocents nearby. Morality mechanic kinda loses a lot of meaning without the element of choice.

Looks incredibly heavy-handed to me. Your player did what I expect most players would do, especially with innocents nearby. Morality mechanic kinda loses a lot of meaning without the element of choice.

There was still choice, it just wasn't a "good choice".

...nor interesting, either.

In the next session, set up a "court" of sorts, with the Lady Sith hearing and meeting out the justice of the empire. To the player, only tell him that the Lady wishes him at her side, in a "Place of honor" while she demonstrates administering the law of the Empire. Have the player's character stand next to her throne (or what have you). The first few are rental disputes or disputes over credits. Have her rule on a couple judiciously. Then the next have her ask him how he would rule on the matter. Then the fun begins. Have 5 detractors brought in tried and executed (1 conflict each if he allows it to happen) Then the last she asks him to execute.

But no, at the first opportunity, he kneels and says, "I am your servant, my Mistress."

And this is the part of the game session i wich you find out more about a player's sexual fetishes than you wanted.

From what i've been told , players will rarely do the same thing as the movie characters would in the same circumstances.

Also a sith mistress is hot, Vader and Palpatine are not. (well, at least not to me. I wouldn"t kneel for Senior citizen palpatine and vader in his gimp suit. Mara jade, Ventress or Darth talon on the other hand... )