This could be your gauge on what your player actually plans on doing, and a logical continuing of the storyline. Also I'd undo any changes that happened because of the 5 conflict you gave him, because it may seem to him that you gave him the conflict because he derailed your plans. That might cause issues later between the player and you.

Kneel before ZOD!

What about giving this mistress an ability that makes your Player Test Opposed Discipline? She makes it so all Pips rolled are Darkside Pips. For each success he can convert one to a lightside point without taking a corruption. For each Advantage he can also not take the strain. Thus as he uses the Force near her, he either calls on the Darkside or is a BA. He could choose to simply not use the Force. He could get lucky and use the Lightside if he can beat her Discipline.

Talk with your player. When he knelt, was he sincere? If he gave himself to the darkside, I would just put him at 29 Morality. Leave his corruption at 0 and let him try and work his way back up. If he didn't, did she sense it? If she knows he is lying, can she torture him into it? I'm getting a very "Richard Rahl and the Mord-Sith" vibe here.

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.quote]

Why not ask the player?

I would guess that following down that dark path in hopes of saving innocents is probably more conflicting than just willing siding with the Sith. If he decided to do it then, to quote the Dark Lord of the Sith, himself, "There is no conflict."

But we all know there was. Anakin fell because he was trying to protect people. He was FULL of conflict. Maybe he buried it but it was always there.

Maybe that somehow made him a lot more powerful. We keep hearing about hate making you powerful. I imagine that hate stemming from a fall like Anakin's must be far more consuming than, say, Darth Maul's. He was simply bred to it, if I am correctly remembering the snippet of EU I actually know.

Anyway, the player would know the truth. Is his character giving in because he's hopeless? Or hopeful!

I'm sorry my last post is all screwy. I can't figure out how to fix it.

Ironically enough, this is the exact action the morality mechanic says is the "right" course. If he didn't swear fealty to the Sith, he would have gained 3 Conflict, due to the 1 Conflict Knowing Inaction once the citizens would most likely have had some kind of violence inflicted upon them.

The PC took the course of action to protect the innocent (so even if he did lie, it falls within the "don't gain Conflict" clause).

This is a very interesting topic, and one I hope the devs are following.

-EF

If he's 'willingly turning to the dark side' I'd give conflict. If he's not and he's trying to bluff the Sith I'd make him attempt to use deception to make them believe he was going to join. If he failed to do that then they'd know he was lying.

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.

Honestly, from the way this is described, as a player I'd yawn and wonder when the game will be over. This doesn't really sound like a game anymore, and the player doesn't seem they get to be a participant in a story, more just something for the GM to toy with. He seems helpless at every turn, other than saying Yes or No. Clearly he can't escape if you had future sessions planned. And how much roleplay can he do from a bacta tank?

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.

Honestly, from the way this is described, as a player I'd yawn and wonder when the game will be over. This doesn't really sound like a game anymore, and the player doesn't seem they get to be a participant in a story, more just something for the GM to toy with. He seems helpless at every turn, other than saying Yes or No. Clearly he can't escape if you had future sessions planned. And how much roleplay can he do from a bacta tank?

This. It's an interesting story, but I don't think it's suited to this medium. There needs to be more player agency.

That's the kind of story that can happen to an NPC or a player between "seasons" of a long campaign or be part of someone's backstory. But for a player to play that out in real-time? It would be really boring.

I actually had almost this exact same situation come up in a game, where I was the player. It was back in WeG days. My Jedi was brought before The Emperor and told to Join him. He said, yup. Sign me up. Do I get the keys to a Star Destroyer? The logic being pretty much, either say no and have terrible things, or say yes and hopefully just escape later.

The Emperor then brought in an apprentice who'd been not doing so good recently, and said "good, Strike Him down and take his place."

I'd have something like this on hand to test his true devotion. To test his loyalty, tell the jedi that the nice man who'd been brought to dinner was in fact a seditious traiter, and he must kill him to show his loyalty.

Of course my character refused to kill him, and tried to run away, which failed (much wackiness ensued). I'm sure lots of terrible things would have happened then, but companions came and rescued him before things got nasty. I think I would try to avoid an extended torture scene personally, unless you think it's something the players would really enjoy. Star Wars is about the adventure. Have him rescued, then get on with the exciting stuff.

Ok, so I've been busy and not able to reply to a lot of these, but I've read them all. I won't try to quote everything but I will try to reply.

Part of my question that gets lost in the noise is whether there is a symbolic and mystical aspect that conveys conflict. There is no question in anyone's mind that the character is totally insincere about kneeling before this Sith. Even the Sith would not have expected that - it's simply too easy. There will be tests, of course, but those are really beyond the scope of this discussion. Truly difficult tests of morality come later - but those are obvious, there's no question that conflict will be generated. The question is whether the symbolic act of kneeling before an evil person and pledging loyalty to them - no matter how feigned - should generate conflict, and if so, how much?

I also told my player, "If you kneel before her, you are acting out of fear and despair as much as pragmatism, and it will generate 5 conflict." He was fine with this, and never questioned it, though he did state that he wanted to protect the innocents and could not see any other way. I question it, because it's a grey area, and because the question is interesting in itself. By the way, he would have still been Paragon had he rolled a 1 to resolve his conflict, and is still quite high on the Morality scale.

I have been gaming with these people for... more than 10 years, so there isn't any issue of trust between myself and my players. We're having a good time, playing through interesting stories. Yes, this one guy is in a bad position - and it may seem like railroading, but he made poor decisions which lead to this point, and this encounter was the natural and reasonable outcome of those decisions. The whole rest of the group is still around somewhere, and my expectation was that he would hold out as long as possible to buy time for them to do something and save them all.

For those wondering, he will go through dark and difficult times as a result of this decision, but not yet. This is because the Sith knows he cannot possibly be sincere, but wants him to be. Instead he will enjoy a short time of pampering and the feeling of growing authority and power (albeit, in relatively trivial matters). He will be suspicious at first, and hedge every decision, but will eventually relax into his role as her student and advisor - and then the axe falls. He'll have to perform a series of dark acts in the face of what he knows to be good and right, and will either get to the point where he must do whatever is necessary to set things right or fall completely.

It is my sincere hope that this produces an epic story of power and loss, tragedy and triumph, a story that my players and I will reminisce about for years to come.

I would've given the character 10 Conflict even if they're lying.

I would say there IS a significant symbolic and mystical aspect to saying "I will serve the dark side", even if you aren't serious about it.

That's just my opinion on how I might run a similar scenario in a game of my own.

I have been gaming with these people for... more than 10 years, so there isn't any issue of trust between myself and my players. We're having a good time, playing through interesting stories. Yes, this one guy is in a bad position - and it may seem like railroading, but he made poor decisions which lead to this point, and this encounter was the natural and reasonable outcome of those decisions.

Fair enough, sounds like a game with far more emotional depth than one I've ever played or hosted. Something to try maybe, if I can get a game that meets more frequently. As it is, I usually have to start the game with a recap of who they are and what they were doing...

I have been gaming with these people for... more than 10 years, so there isn't any issue of trust between myself and my players. We're having a good time, playing through interesting stories. Yes, this one guy is in a bad position - and it may seem like railroading, but he made poor decisions which lead to this point, and this encounter was the natural and reasonable outcome of those decisions.

Fair enough, sounds like a game with far more emotional depth than one I've ever played or hosted. Something to try maybe, if I can get a game that meets more frequently. As it is, I usually have to start the game with a recap of who they are and what they were doing...

Sometimes it's a win if the players can remember their characters' names

I would have given either zero or one

"Lying for Personal Gain: The PC tells a lie for selfish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told
to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents." This sounds like what happened.

The book notes that player intent is pretty important. Not to say good intentions always justify horrible actions. But in this case, I feel that saying you will serve the dark side, and actually embracing it, are very different things.

Speaking to the part of "mystical quality that provides conflict" I can only say that I am a holdover from the WEG days, when the role of the GM was partially to play an aspect of the Force, too. Determining when Dark Side Points were appropriate and when not.

As such, I always write the adventure with the an eye to the outcome that the Dark Side wants, and the outcome the Light Side wants. As players interact with these goals, then I try and keep their actions in the framework of what are they actively forwarding? The Light Side goal very often has a galaxy spanning implication and balance to maintain, whilst the Dark Side often is an immediate focus and is fixated on the "now."

With Force Users, I hold them to a very high standard of conduct, because they are in tune not with just their own needs and immediate surroundings, but also an intricate web of life that extends to all living things in the universe. Rash actions and snap judgments are (in the context of how I run/write adventures) very self serving and immediate needs - and these more often than not will have a Dark Side bent - after all, personal logic is very good at justifying our own actions, but these same logical arguments are always taken from points of ignorance unless reflected upon and formulated prior to acting. This ignorance furthers the Dark Side, for it "ignores" the input of the greater galaxy and thus the Light Side as a whole.

As such, when we work in counter to the Will of the Force, we inherently "block" ourselves, and hinder our own actions. This is what I take to mean from conflict - the "feeling that something isn't right" that we cannot specifically site, but know to be true.

With the above in mind, I tend to assign conflict in the same way - should a player reflect on the the situation, I usually give Cool or Discipline checks to give them a freebie on whether their motivation for the scene is in line with the "Will of the Force" or not, but when they do things without thinking and it runs against the Light Side, then I feel no guilt in assigning them conflict for it.

Think about what Yoda said, "A Jedi must have the most serious mind, the deepest commitment." Even to the point of calling Luke "reckless" as an admonishment.

I would have given either zero or one

"Lying for Personal Gain: The PC tells a lie for selfish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told

to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents." This sounds like what happened.

The book notes that player intent is pretty important. Not to say good intentions always justify horrible actions. But in this case, I feel that saying you will serve the dark side, and actually embracing it, are very different things.

I both agree and disagree -

I agree that saying you will serve and actually embracing it are different, this is much more a "1st step down a dark path" that it is an "Anakin kneeling before Palpy after butchering Mace Windu" kinda moment.

I disagree that this was a "Lying for Personal Gain" situation, as there was no reason to believe (based on the initial situation of the citizens giving their lavish accounts of citizenship under the lady sith) that the citizens would be harmed in any way . The character acted out of ignorance and fear - a very dark sidey motivation - regardless of the reason why. The motivation was fear and ignorance of the situation - which he wholly embraced in his action and in this is how he Embraced the Dark Side.

When Anakin killed Mace and knelt before the Emperor, I hardly think that was a mere 10 Conflict that he got - that was a series of actions that all gave him 10 Conflict for embracing the Dark Side, as he was repeatedly using justifications to ignore his alignment with the Dark Side of the Force - from "I'm trying to save my wife" to "Jedi don't execute people" all seemingly good motivations, all stemming from Dark Side motivations.

I can agree with that. Perhaps a fear check should have been the best way of determining if conflict was gained. Probably a Daunting check with an upgrade or two, which could potentially net you four conflict.

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!"

Which would work. . . all the way up to the point where the PC had to eat a kitten .

But kittens ate tasty and just what a growing jedi's diet needs...