Would you ever award Conflict for something the PCs didn't specifically know would give them Conflict?

Typically I always tell the PCs if what they're about to do will give them Conflict. "Stealing those medical supplies will give you 2 points of Conflict." "Shooting that fleeing Stormtrooper in the back will give you 8 points of Conflict."

I have in mind an event where a crimelord has given the PCs a code key for the starport in order to allow them to hack into its computers and open some doors to get them where they need to go.

None of the PCs are very computer-savvy, so this would have been more difficult without the crimelord's help.

What I had in mind was that the code cylinder also has some code that infects the starport computer and erases all the customs records or causes some other kinds of chaos so that the crimelord can do a lot more crime, resulting in some big shipments of spice coming into the city and more people being addicted, etc.

I kinda want to give them some Conflict after the fact if they use this code cylinder without checking it out carefully. Some of them even have Force powers that could let them Foresee or Sense and learn what the crimelord was up to, but they haven't chosen to use them.

This isn't something I'd do often, but in this case I feel like it could be warranted. What do you think?

If they are trying to avoid conflict i would tell them an action would lead to conflict.

I don't think I'd give them Conflict for using a code cylinder that also had a virus on it unless they knew it was there and would cause such damage. However, if they realize that the damage inflicted on the station was a result of them using that cylinder, I might give them Conflict if they don't do anything to help stop it or undo some of the damage caused.

So, their aiding an abetting a crime lord.......yeah, if they don't inquire about other possible effects of this assistance then they should get conflict regardless if they are aware of the virus of not. Its from a known suspicious source and the PCs should be aware that this is one gift horse you should look into. Ignorance is not the equivalent of innocence.

Lets flip it.

You're playing, I'm GMing. You crash-land on a planet and the local sheriff offers to cover the cost of repairs if you help him with some bantha rustlers. You go out, kick the tar outta them, haul em back to jail. Then someone else in town tells you the rustlers were legit land owners and the sheriff used you to help clear them out so he could claim mining rights on their land after the hanging.

Do you feel like you deserve conflict just for being duped?

You could have asked around if the sheriff was corrupt. But you didn't. You just assumed that it was a simple ***-for-tat exchange.

While I don't feel the GM should always have to announce that he's giving you Conflict, I do feel that the action that earns it should be something under the Players control. Just slapping them with conflict because they didn't decide to dig into every motivation of every NPC sets a bad precedent and leaves the Players feeling like you punished them for nothing.

EDIT.... and so it appears the content filter mistakes figures of speech for references to mammary glands....

Some things require a warning, I'd say most don't, but it depends on your players. If you're all used to playing with each other, you can easily assign conflict after the action, and explain why. If they think you've done it wrong, the player would be comfortable giving a counter-point. And any lengthy discussion on it can be pushed on to after the session or during a break. For example, if I'm the player and you're the gm, and we've played together enough to trust each other, and I shot a fleeing stormtrooper in the back, and you awarded 8 conflict, I'd probably say, "Well, he's still an enemy, he's going to get more of his buddies and come kill me later, plus he's not really defenseless, he's tactically retreating. 8 conflict is up near the despicable acts territory, and I think this is a 1-3 conflict grey area." Then you'd say, "No, I think I'll stick with 8, but let's get back to this after the action."

Now with players you're new to gaming with, especially players that you get a little of the "bloodthirsty murder-hobo" vibe from, you should probably interrupt them with, "That's a fairly dark action, and will earn you 2 conflict. Do you still want to do it?"

Last, to go with Ghostofman's post, be careful not to entrap players into earning conflict. But putting them in difficult situations like Ghostofman's example can be done well, if you show them after they've agreed to the false task, but before they've pulled the trigger, that things aren't as clear-cut as they were led to believe. Maybe they get to the "rustlers" and when confronted, the npc group claims they're legitimate businessmen with legal claim to these parts, and that no-good sheriff is using the players to go around the law to settle a grudge. Suddenly, they're in a real dilemma, do they return, check the facts, and risk letting the rustlers escape if its a creative lie? Or do they just shoot up the place and sort out the mess later (earning some well-justified conflict)?

To be honest my players have been extremely vigilant about taking the hard way and avoiding opportunities to earn Conflict. We now have 3 Light Side Paragons in the group.

I keep looking for compelling ways to give them serious dilemmas, where there are 2 bad choices, 6 Conflict or 3 Conflict, but no real "good" option. I just haven't been that great at it so far.

They're definitely playing in the spirit of the game, and now I'm looking for ways to challenge them more. I wouldn't surprise them with Conflict more than once or twice ever, and I think I will provide them with some more opportunities to look into the truth behind their collaboration with the crimelord.

I think they'd be good sports about it if I did it just once