You have points yes. The question though was How heavy handed are you in giving out conflict? And I did say Very as my answer. I was trying to point out that as far as my GM, I , and my group interpret those rules as they should offer the enemy time to surender, be that AFTER you disable them or before is only dependeant on if they let you talk first. In you example of Yoda vs Duku you didn't mention that they gave him the option to surrender before they attacked him. That senario isnt really relevant in my opinion<take that as you wish> due to the fact that they did offer to let him surrender in the first attacks and its assumed that if they surrvie the fight youda would be arresting them since hes a member of the established defenders of justice/police/blah blah froups.

In the example with the storm troopers, if they attacked the party without provocation(which in this setting is rather hard for a troop of LEGAL, AUTHORIZED, POLICE FORCE units, to actually do) then yeah id say defend away. But if they come in on the orders of THEIR government to take out a set of TERROISTS then yes they are going to shoot anyone they encounter with a weapon and that is their JOB. Now if they waited for the team to fall asleep, tied them up, and then oh i dont know started shooting one randomly and the party jedi rips the troopers arm off to stop that yup no issues. But if they are just being attacked by storm troopers cause they are the Terroists they happn to be? no. A jedi should be able to find a way out with the least amount of harm to EVERYONE in that situation. If they cant minimal amounts of violence to get away? yes thats fine. ERADICATING the troopers tothe last man? No. I Prefer my players and my GMs as well to find ways to motivate the group to not just go out and kill of everything that attacks them . Thats just not the jedi way.

That was very well said and put. You're right - if running away is a valid option, they should earn conflict for attacking without trying that first.

If the PC's first option to resolve a situation is immediate violence and the other party's not attacking, then that's worth a point of Conflict per the chart in the Beta, since they didn't even bother to try to find other alternatives to fighting, such as parlay or even simply running away.

If a group of stormtroopers shows up and starts trying to blast you without any provocation, that's probably not worth a point of Conflict, since at that point you're defending yourself from an unprovoked aggressive action on the part of the troopers. If those same stormtroopers show up, but with weapons holstered or at least not pointed in your general direction (such as the troopers that Luke and Ben ran into when entering Mos Eisley), that's different. What mentioned Obi-Wan slicing a dude's arm off, but one should note that Ben first tried to defuse the situation verbally ("come, let me get you something...") and only drew his lightsaber when the other guy went for his blaster and made it clear that peaceful resolution wasn't in the cards.

Problem is TakeshiMasaki, the very setting itself enforces that there's only a single perspective where Morality is concerned, and that's how the Force sees it, much as DarthGM described.

How does the setting enforce it? Besides that being a decision of the GM running the Campaign. There is not one thing that says the Force Determines all Morality Period with no deviation. The Morality/Conflict setup is done to allow the GM to adjust them so that it better serves the Campaign and Players.

Societal norms have ZERO impact on what generates Conflict. Just because a society openly promotes slavery (such as the Hutts) doesn't mean that a Force user from that culture won't generate Conflict by forcing sentient beings into slavery, which at the very least is 6 conflict, if not more. Same with a culture that promotes ritual sacrifice; murder is still murder, even if the victim is willing, and thus will generate Conflict.

In your game they may have ZERO impact, but that is not true for other peoples games. Your example is flawed in my opinion.

An person force user or not from a Society like the Hutts is impacted on how they deal with slavery. Was the person from the part of the Society that Owned Slaves or where they a slave. I would see that a former slave now enslaving other beings with no other reason, but to own them. Would receive more conflict than a individual from a Slave Owning Family. I would not lay a blanket amount of Conflict on everyone for enslaving beings and I would not Completely negate conflict to someone just because they come from that Society, but I would impose more conflict from someone coming from a Society that is completely against slavery.

I've been playing Star Wars RPGs since before the turn of the century, and the one thing that has ALWAYS caused problems with Dark Side Points in prior systems was people trying to weasel their way out of dark actions because "my character's society doesn't see that course of action as being inherently evil." And the same weasel tactics if applied to the Conflict mechanic will make such a mechanic pointless.

I've been playing them just as long and I have seen people try it. From my experience it almost never works on just the "My Society is like this" Angle. Of course that is also because, Myself and the other GM's I know, hammer hard on people who constantly try to use "My Society is like this" and turn back on them in other situations. You're Society is like this then you must act accordingly.

Which is what we do with Conflict. It is not about Negating Conflict based on ones Society, but Adjusting the amount. One's Society might actually increase their Conflict in certain situations.

Honestly, if you're not happy with the Conflict mechanic and how it's applied, then you're better off just not using it. Maelora does that for her games (no Conflict/Morality, as well as no Obligation or Duty), and from what she says her games seem to run just fine without those parts of the game.

I am happy with the Conflict Mechanic and see no reason for me not to use it. I just take further considerations in applying Conflict Points which is something that the Mechanic Allows for. Just because you want to use a Cookie Cutter idea when you apply it does not mean everyone else does. It is up to the GM to make those determinations for their Campaigns.