How heavy handed are you guys with conflict? Just getting into a firefight dings you slightly? Or do you generally save conflict for bigger moments?

Being WEG players of old, our group tends to hand out Conflict for the big things and let the little stuff slide. For example, my Princess with The Force tends to be very hot blooded. She kneecapped a guy for mentally torturing her sister, threatening to throw her out an air lock and basically play good ol' boy games with her. So she shot him point blank in the knee with her heavy blaster and then just walked away, leaving him in the dark alley (she got 7 or 8 for that).

Or, last night - a Hutt who had been messing with her family (sadistically torturing some captives and the like) - she went after him during the climactic firefight, all pretty fair and square. It was the gratuitous grenade stuffed in the mouth of the Hutt corpse after the fight was over that dinged her for 8 conflict.

However, despite all that, she generally goes up - I somehow have this amazing knack for rolling high when I'm wracking up the conflict. So yes, even doing all that, she's still a lightside paragon.

So, are we doing it wrong? Should it be "Well, you shot a stormtrooper in that firefight. Here, have one conflict. Oh, you shot another stormtrooper - here, earn one more. . . ." or is this just an odd circumstance of rolling well?

Sounds fine to me. I'm a grumpy old man too, so maybe that's it, but it seems pretty clear that you aren't supposed to be kicking out conflict just because that's the direction the game went.

If a half dozen stormtroopers charge into the room and shout "Blast em!" the Players shouldn't get Conflict for not trying to talk em down first without a pretty epic reason.

I also would add that I Like the Jay Little approach here. Let the player know the conflict while forming the pool. Then as heavy handed as you may be the player who rolled the dice agreed to the social contract as to what the conflict cost was.

I am also of teh opinion that it isn't conflict if the player is not freely able to make a choice between the good/evil choice. If all you are doing is giving two good choices or two bad choices then there should be no conflict earned in a situation that is conflict free.

Sounds fine to me. I'm a grumpy old man too, so maybe that's it, but it seems pretty clear that you aren't supposed to be kicking out conflict just because that's the direction the game went.

If a half dozen stormtroopers charge into the room and shout "Blast em!" the Players shouldn't get Conflict for not trying to talk em down first without a pretty epic reason.

That's kind of what I was thinking: was it gratuitous? Was the character acting out in the wrong headspace (fear, anger, ect)? That sort of thing. Since the second word in the title is "Wars", there is going to be lots of day-to-day violence. That's the kind of stuff I'm not worrying about - just the biggies.

I also would add that I Like the Jay Little approach here. Let the player know the conflict while forming the pool. Then as heavy handed as you may be the player who rolled the dice agreed to the social contract as to what the conflict cost was.

Thing is - I knew fully that some conflict was coming down. I was already writing a note on my white board for "Rectral Grenade Exam" (although it was administered orally instead) well before my turn came around.

It's just a matter of what is conflict worthy. Sniping someone in the head on an animal safari "by accident", kneecapping a dude and gynological thermal detonators are all pretty conflict worthy. I'm just wondering about the day-to-day violence.

I am also of teh opinion that it isn't conflict if the player is not freely able to make a choice between the good/evil choice. If all you are doing is giving two good choices or two bad choices then there should be no conflict earned in a situation that is conflict free.

Oh there was absolute player free will here. I have no issues with the play style at all. (Of course I could argue that the player and the character don't see eye to eye. There was no way she was going to let this go, even if I wanted to let the matter slide. But that's a discussion for another time. )

Wow-- as much as this chick is sadistic players are free to do as they wish-- to an extent.

This seems more like Dark Heresy instead of SW type game. Pretty brutal stuff for SW...but maybe yor game is a little darker.

I'm no longer sure how Morality works (I'm not running a game that uses it currently), but if I was I'd make sure there was no chance of getting a higher Morality score in those kinds of sessions.

I'm not really a fan of the mechanic anyway...the Force doesn't weigh your good chits against your bad...in fact you should get no benefit at all from "doing good" or "being nice". What the mechanic should weigh is how well a character restrains themselves when the opportunity to act badly presents itself. Those are the only real moments that matter.

Grenade to the mouth after the kill...is DARK...there no way some one could be a lightside paragon...

Wow-- as much as this chick is sadistic players are free to do as they wish-- to an extent.

This seems more like Dark Heresy instead of SW type game. Pretty brutal stuff for SW...but maybe yor game is a little darker.

Sadistic? Most of the time she's quite nice. It's just that when you come after her family (and the Hutt had been been extra, unnecessarily cruel with her sister and her bodyguard/minder/courtier, kidnapped her droid and stole her ship - she was a little pissed) the gloves come off.

It had been a very bad day for her.

I'm not really a fan of the mechanic anyway...the Force doesn't weigh your good chits against your bad...in fact you should get no benefit at all from "doing good" or "being nice". What the mechanic should weigh is how well a character restrains themselves when the opportunity to act badly presents itself. Those are the only real moments that matter.

The more I play with it, the less I'm a fan of it. Unlike the story hooks that come with Obligation, there's no real story benefit to it. I'll admit that having an extra destiny point is nice when you're a paragon (we're a small group, so the points can run very lean some times), but mechanically it offers nothing that cant already be handled narratively.

I'm thinking of proposing that we just houserule it next time we get together - dropping the Morality and any jedi gets one bonus DP automatically.

Yeah there is action kills due to messing with families --I get this. But than there is twisted. Grenade to mouth after death-- that's a dark...and I've run dark games before.

I've not been overly heavy-handed with Conflict, and rarely give warnings for the lesser "violations" that wouldn't earn more than a point or two. Most of that is due to making it fairly clear to the PCs that being Force users their actions will often have consequences; some immediate, some far-reaching.

But if the PC is going to commit an action that would generate a lot of Conflict (6 or more), I do ask them if they are sure about doing it... and if they go through with it, such as murdering a helpless opponent that's been taunting them, then that PC gets the Conflict penalty for crossing the line.

Luckily, the folks I have for players in my Force and Destiny game are not the "wandering murder hobo" type (well, the Gand we're not entirely sure about) and so I've not had to worry about "reining in" any potential psychopaths in the group.

Sometimes for pretty grievous things I just hand out straight morality loss.

"No, there is no conflict and rolling and the possibility of you gaining morality, you murdered that man and you enjoyed it, you lose morality because you are a bad person."

Grenade to the mouth after the kill...is DARK...there no way some one could be a lightside paragon...

And to be honest, it might be awfully malicious, but a grenade in the mouth of something dead isn't the worst thing I seen. The end of mad max is the classic example of giving a overly cruel, 8-10 conflict choice.

Sometimes for pretty grievous things I just hand out straight morality loss.

"No, there is no conflict and rolling and the possibility of you gaining morality, you murdered that man and you enjoyed it, you lose morality because you are a bad person."

I also agree with this on occasion. Personally I find morality is an alright scale to use, but it's only any good if you give the chacater constant, 10+ conflict choices total, otherwise you could end up as a serial killer that is a light paragon because he only murders in a very calculated pattern.

As for me, as a force sensitive I often don't feel I get enough opportunity to go darkside, my character is part of a very fringe squad assembled from some of the most desperate individual in e Galaxy, further more my character has a Sith artifact in his procession that he's had a whole year before he manifested his force sensitivity. Yet he's 76 on the morality scale because my dm is very black and white and my character is exceedingly good at planning.

There have been a few cercumstances that has earned me conflict however.

Shooting defenseless people. (Twice, both times to prevent the target threatening the party again, and a third time when my character was compelled to do it by the light saber, but didn't. I elected to receive two conflict for considering the motion.)

Using sense while gambling (reading minds to cheat totally isn't against any rules I know! My character was training his abilities on some local rings, though he only recieved 1. Incase you were wondering. It wasn't actually that effective, just a training. Tool. M y character is also quite addicted to that, despite his average presence.)

Killing of cops ( only recieved 1 for not being able to diswade the member with the heavy blasterrifle. I really Hate that gun. If I had done it, it would have likely been 4 for each, considering it was a chase scene, there were 8, they all died.)

Generally, I would hand out conflict for starting any fights that cloud clearly be avoided, though there is no penalty to defending yourself or someone else. There are exceptions to rules, such as generally killing simple law enforcement is considered a very dark thing to do, as for most part they are just doing a job. In general, having huge collateral damage would bring conflict, as would betrayal and abusal of the force (in essence, using the force to toy with species uncessarialy, either physically or mentally. So using influence for trival or means directly detrimental to the people used on could warrant minor conflict.), as it's very much a "means justify the end" kind of mentality.

But that justification is based on your humanity/being sympathetic more then anything else. People generally shouldn't be penialiaed for witnessing crime unless they were in a postion to do something about it. Conflict shouldn't be about what happened, but rather how the player regrets it or how insensitive that character has become. Apathetic or ruffles force senstives that dominate other others by stripping free will or lives at whim should be seeped in the darkside. I have actively requested conflict on several occasions simply because events that transpired did have an effect on my character as I feel it should never be a tool to police, but rather reflect ones feelings toward others in general.

I also agree with this on occasion. Personally I find morality is an alright scale to use, but it's only any good if you give the chacater constant, 10+ conflict choices total, otherwise you could end up as a serial killer that is a light paragon because he only murders in a very calculated pattern.

A example for this would be Star Wars version of Dexter..

Which might work for select characters, but not for all..

Grenade in a corpse's mouth ...

I also agree with this on occasion. Personally I find morality is an alright scale to use, but it's only any good if you give the chacater constant, 10+ conflict choices total, otherwise you could end up as a serial killer that is a light paragon because he only murders in a very calculated pattern.

A example for this would be Star Wars version of Dexter..

Which might work for select characters, but not for all..

I would probably argue that depending on how or for what reasons it's being carried out. It's one thing doing something as a one off, and another doing it fairly consistantly. One is something that will leave a marked stain on your character, it's quite another to disect sentient beings on a frequent basis to dispose of them properly. I would probably argue that the conflict for repeating that activity will gradually escilate. More so if your doing it for no good reason.

But regardless there would be a lot of conflict earned for that particalar method of dismemberment, irrspective of the reasoning behind it. I guess using the same principle one can argue about shoving an grenade in a dead persons mouth; there should be conflict gained for all of those; but nor should one particilar event dictate ones character. Falling and assending should be a gradual process, and going to the Darkside be a consquence of decreasing character morals and taking advantage of any situation, even if inherently detrimental.

Just to be clear, I'm not using the Morality system in my current game (mostly because there are no Force sensitives in the group). However, when we do start I'm probably going to be fairly strict about it. Not for just general combat, a fair fight against armed and ready opponents isn't particuarly morally ambiguous, but for the more shady stuff I plan on handing out small amounts of Conflict.

My reasoning is that it's quite easy to increase your Morality without actually doing much of anything - you keep your nose clean for 8-10 session and you're a light-side paragon without even trying. Giving out small amount of Conflict for minor shady behaviour is not likely to send anyone plummeting into the Dark, but will at least slow their ascent somewhat.

Oh, and in the example Desslok gave I'd definitely give her Conflict. 8 was maybe a little much (as best I can tell without having been present at the table, anyway) since the Hutt was already dead, but that was definitely a Conflict-worthy thing to do.

Krieger22,

From talks that I've had with a couple of the designers on the topic and their comments about Morality, it sounds like the intent is that the GM shouldn't be allowing the PCs to "wiggle out" of earning Conflict via extenuating circumstances very often, if at all.

After all, this isn't like the D6 version of Star Wars where getting a Dark Side Point was a huge thing, since one bad roll on a d6 could turn a PC to the dark side (if you rolled under your current Dark Side total, the character became a new NPC villain). It wasn't quite as harsh under the d20 systems, but again racking up too many Dark Side Points was still not a great idea, particularly Saga Edition where the "lose your character" angle came back.

In Force and Destiny, Conflict is pretty easy to avoid provided one actually decides to play their character like a Jedi as opposed to being a semi-psychic thug with a fancy energy sword. And what little Conflict the PCs that act like actual Jedi do earn is easily washed away. I still find it amusing that at least 90% of the default actions in a D&D group's playbook will generate Conflict in this system, making it quite a surprise for some players that the "bread and butter" methods that work so well in that game will have them sledding down the slope to the dark side pretty quickly.

I also agree with this on occasion. Personally I find morality is an alright scale to use, but it's only any good if you give the chacater constant, 10+ conflict choices total, otherwise you could end up as a serial killer that is a light paragon because he only murders in a very calculated pattern.

A example for this would be Star Wars version of Dexter..

Which might work for select characters, but not for all..

I would probably argue that depending on how or for what reasons it's being carried out. It's one thing doing something as a one off, and another doing it fairly consistantly. One is something that will leave a marked stain on your character, it's quite another to disect sentient beings on a frequent basis to dispose of them properly. I would probably argue that the conflict for repeating that activity will gradually escilate. More so if your doing it for no good reason.

But regardless there would be a lot of conflict earned for that particalar method of dismemberment, irrspective of the reasoning behind it. I guess using the same principle one can argue about shoving an grenade in a dead persons mouth; there should be conflict gained for all of those; but nor should one particilar event dictate ones character. Falling and assending should be a gradual process, and going to the Darkside be a consquence of decreasing character morals and taking advantage of any situation, even if inherently detrimental.

Good points.

I see that Morality is perspective based. There is the General conception of what Society considers Normal and what is normal of individuals.

I would take those arguments and use them against how a character would have to Justify their actions.

Is this a ritual for enjoyment, forensic countermeasure, a mix of both, how often do they perform it, and how do they react when they do not preform the type of action.

So I would say you could give conflict points in not doing said action as it breaks with the characters Morality.

Keeping with the Dexter Reference (Harry's Rules). Which was to give Order and blended into Ritual. He is a character that sees himself as evil, but his evil actions are for the greater good (Personal Morality). Outside of the killing which is outlined as something needed. He is the poster boy for the Good Guy which plays on what is normal to Society.

It is similar to how Fanatics justify their actions.

That is why I see it working for select, but not all. As most characters would not have such a deviation from what is considered by Society Normal Morality, but look to find a way to conform.

I see that Morality is perspective based. There is the General conception of what Society considers Normal and what is normal of individuals.

ood points.

I would take those arguments and use them against how a character would have to Justify their actions.

Is this a ritual for enjoyment, forensic countermeasure, a mix of both, how often do they perform it, and how do they react when they do not preform the type of action.

So I would say you could give conflict points in not doing said action as it breaks with the characters Morality.

Keeping with the Dexter Reference (Harry's Rules). Which was to give Order and blended into Ritual. He is a character that sees himself as evil, but his evil actions are for the greater good (Personal Morality). Outside of the killing which is outlined as something needed. He is the poster boy for the Good Guy which plays on what is normal to Society.

It is similar to how Fanatics justify their actions.

That is why I see it working for select, but not all. As most characters would not have such a deviation from what is considered by Society Normal Morality, but look to find a way to conform.

There is a slight flaw to this line of thinking. There is only one Perspective for assigning Conflict, that of the Force's perspective.

Morality and the Conflict Chart are not intended to be "Society based", they're intended to be based on the belief of the Will of the Force. That's why it's a hard and fast chart, and if you stick with that chart you should do alright. The GM is free to add in or modify it to how they want the Force to respond to the Force Sensitive character's actions, but the Conflict chart should be the ultimate "go to" for what gains Conflict and what doesn't. You (the character) may have a personal concept of what is right and wrong, but the Force does not care what you think. The Force is Light and it is Dark, and a Force Sensitive's actions will reflect back upon them in the Force.

It is the Force itself that is assigning the Conflict, not Society. It is the Force that is pushing or pulling the character to the Light or the Dark with the Morality roll at the end of each session.

Keep that in mind as you wrap your head around the Conflict system. If you're doing something that would make Palpatine smile, you will earn Conflict.

I know there is a flaw is how I look at it and it is with being Consistent when Assigning Conflict. I disagree with there being only One Perspective on how to assign Conflict.

The Force is not the solely determining factor in a characters Morality Level or the Assignment of Conflict. It's connection to Morality Level is the same as any other Action or Decision. It is not the only one part of what makes up a Characters Personal set of Morals, along with other factors such as Education, Upbringing, and Experiences.

There is a slight flaw to this line of thinking. There is only one Perspective for assigning Conflict, that of the Force's perspective.

Saying that there is only the One Perspective / Force Perspective is saying that you can only view Morality in one way. Through the Force and only the Force. Which is neither wrong or right, but a preference.

• This Single Perspective to assign conflict does not represent all the possibilities, but actually limits them. Saying that there is only the Force Perspective means that Conflict can only be assigned when pertaining to the Force.
  • Decision/Actions that do not rely on the Force would not qualify for conflict.
    • So it is possible to argue that you can do horrendous actions without using the Force and again no conflict.
  • Having the Force determine Assignment of Conflict then moves it away from being Ambiguous and being limited to categories of light and dark.
    • Certain actions will always bring conflict because no matter how you use them they represent this specific place in the Force's Moral Structure.
• Morality and Conflict with the One Perspective / Force Perspective outlook is a simple Cookie Cutter way of using the Morality System. It is one way to use the Morality System, but not the only way.
  • While people like it in that manner and will use it that way. It does not represent all that Morality System can be / is in a campaign.

Morality and the Conflict Chart are not intended to be "Society based", they're intended to be based on the belief of the Will of the Force. That's why it's a hard and fast chart, and if you stick with that chart you should do alright. The GM is free to add in or modify it to how they want the Force to respond to the Force Sensitive character's actions, but the Conflict chart should be the ultimate "go to" for what gains Conflict and what doesn't. You (the character) may have a personal concept of what is right and wrong, but the Force does not care what you think. The Force is Light and it is Dark, and a Force Sensitive's actions will reflect back upon them in the Force.

The GM's determination if actions are immoral are what bring the Greater Society based Idea of Morality. It opens up more that one Perspective to how Conflict is Assigned instead of limiting it to One View.

• There is a Overall Moral Concept the GM has for their Campaign. The way the Moral and Conflict tables will be applied.
• The Option to assign Conflict for Narrative Actions / Decisions vs the simple Mechanical method is representative of different Perspectives.
• The GM can decide to apply how a Characters / Societies Morals to decide how severe Actions / Decisions are.
  • A Pacifist deliberating committing murder vs killing in defense of a life. Both are serious violations of ones Morality and bring severe applications of Conflict, but one dwarfs the other without question.

Neither Morality or Conflict Tables are "hard and fast" and they should not be treated as such.

• Morality Table breaks down into its two pieces and how it is used is left up to the GM.
  • It does not even require anyone to beholden to what is on the Table and promotes the idea of Creating new Emotional Strengths/Weaknesses to better suit characters.
• The Conflict Table is simply there to give Examples for Common actions and in general what amount of Conflict can be applied.
  • Calling it the Ultimate Go To is a misrepresentation to what it represents.
  • It also does not restrict anyone to be limited to what is on the table, but represents a general idea of a standard that you can use.

It is the Force itself that is assigning the Conflict, not Society. It is the Force that is pushing or pulling the character to the Light or the Dark with the Morality roll at the end of each session.

The Force does not make anyone Light or Dark Side. Individuals actions/decisions are what determine that and that is reflected in their Morality Level. Not just level, but the Morals the character is suppose to have. So the Force itself not capable of assigning Conflict, but it is a heavy influence when it comes to that.

Keep that in mind as you wrap your head around the Conflict system. If you're doing something that would make Palpatine smile, you will earn Conflict.

This right here basically would have made The Jedi Order the equivalent of Sith during TCW. As their continued participation constantly made Palpatine Smile behind closed doors. I am sure that is not your intent, but that is how it comes across to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And then there is the game I'm in currently. Our DM asked if we had an issue with not knowing our conflict score EVER. We said "Meh sounds right. Not like everyone knows their evil nutjobs till its too late so go for it." Mind you we also tend to have...anger issues anyway. eg tossing an ion grenade into a speeder full of mostly disabled bountyhunters while doing 100+ and couple of hundred feet in the air...just cause the player figured it would be a more spectacular explosion with all the screaming beforehand.

The problem we have found so far with morality is that our GM has had to be more strict to even effect our overall rating so far. Out of the party, one droid theif with an addiction to human clothing(this has been...problimatic sooo many times) 2 self trained force uses(have a holocron...arnt aware its a Darkside one yet soo theres that issue.) and our smuggler..who is a greedy greedy little thing, we tend to have to intentionally do something wrong, or right out say "this is out of anger, fear, or over the top emotion so ding us **** it" we have been sitting at a slow increase of 1-2 points a session and...welp its starting to affect the way the two force users do things. Namely "Yes thank you for that information. No no you won't remeber this conversation. And just incase you do you want to walk into traffic now anyway right?" to name one of the things our sage did...

So yeah I say hammer them for the morality points all in all. Otherwise people wont really end up playing the jedi code very well. I mean kill a droid big woop if you arnt torturing the thing but otherwise? take it apart and move on. But if you don't need to kill a humanoid DON'T find a way not too. Make the players who want to be JEDI work for it. "Welp you get jumped by a dozen stormtroopers...What do? Oh btw rember that those fellows are just doing their job sooooo theres that *Evil dm gring of doom*"

"Welp you get jumped by a dozen stormtroopers...What do? Oh btw rember that those fellows are just doing their job sooooo theres that *Evil dm gring of doom*"

I agree with you up until that. Stormtroopers tend to shoot first, and defending yourself against lethal intent shouldn't generate conflict unless you're cruel.

Stormtrooper shoots at you, you lightsaber him. No conflict.

Stormtrooper shoots at you, you stun him, no conflict.

Stormtrooper shoots at you, you use your bind mastery to crush every bone in his body and leave him a whimpering pile of gelatinous flesh on the deck - conflict!

Well my issue with it is this:

Stormtrooper goes on duty "Hey corpral you got a job. We need you to round up a pshychotic religious zealot with one of those crazy light swords. Yeah I know hazard pay and all that but welp good luck."

Just tend to see it that way during Dark ages. The jedi were so propagandized as evil, insainly dangerous, blah blah blah that most people would run away, cower, or go in expecting the equivilant of walking into hell. And really thats a how i see stormtroopers of the era. I mean sure later on they might be part of the evil regeim and such but otherwise? Standard millitary response teams in Starwars. That is how they are writen no matter how we tend to make fun of them they are standard army troops. And I'd think that most army troops today who get sent into a situation after something that dangerous, aka a terrorist which both the rebals and jedi are in this time frame, are going to shoot anyone who is armed in a encounter really. Mind you I cant talk from experience as im not military but personally I'd likely shoot the crazy space mystic with the sword that can cut through a blast door if I walked into an assault on terroists and saw one.

Again though, that's bringing perception or "certain point of view" into the equation, where a sufficiently devious player can then weasel their way out of gaining any conflict ever.

Person A shoots at person B with the intent to kill (or intent to capture so they can be tortured and later killed). Person B, as per conflict rules, can defend themselves without incurring a penalty provided they don't use conflict generating powers to do so.

Person A shoots at Person B, B kneecaps them, yells "RAMPAGE", and then lights everyone on fire: conflict.

The alternative, where:

Person A shoots at Person B, person B is not allowed to harm Person A without gaining Conflict, means the players are subject entirely to the whim of the DM for how much conflict they accrue vis a vis number of combats thrown at them.

Heck, Obi-Wan, who I think most people would agree is held as the paragon light sider next to Yoda, chops a dude's arm off just for pointing a blaster at Luke without even pulling the trigger.

Yoda, grand master of the Jedi Order, and frequently mentioned master of his emotions, attacks Palpatine and Dooku after being attacked himself. I don't think anyone ever would argue that was worthy of conflict.