I have not been part of the FnD beta, but wanted to ask a morality question:
if a Force user with Morality does nothing while the rest of the party do bad deeds, does the Force User gain conflict?
i ask because for a mixed party with Edge and Age PC's this could make the Morality mechanic much more interesting than a party of Force using Paladins who all do "the Right thing"
I'll say I avoid conflict the plague, and the price I typically pay for it is that I won't use Dark Pips.
Your friend is falling down a cliff roll Move to save him.
*rolls 3 dice, rolls 3 dark pips*
...Sorry, bro, but it looks like it's your time to become one with the Force.
"You seriously let my character die."
'Fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Miss them do not. Mourn them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is. I am therefore letting go of everything I fear to lose.'
"...I don't care if it's G-Canon, d*** move bro."
I would have thought that letting a good friend die when drawing on the Dark Side could have saved them would cause a lot of future personal anguish and torment. i understand that Yoda said that, but isn't it more about being unable to prevent some loss and not mourning the ones you can not save. I would think there is a very big difference between being unable to prevent a loss and being in a position to prevent a death.
edit.
not that i dont respect your and your GM's decision (dont know if the other player liked it though!)
I am going to go one step further and simply state that both that person and the gm was wrong. Jedi don't form connections generally and thus wouldn't have gone as far as to make friends in principle, associates yes, friends that you would risk your lives for? No. That was ultimately the Jedi weakness, that they are out of touch with the greater Galaxy.
More percifically,the player in question should have gained IMMENSE conflict for letting a friend, an important associate die when with a little more strain and a touch of emotion that fate could have been prevented entirely. And it is also part of the Jedi code that the Jedi is a servant to the Republic, was he who died not a part of that Republic? The only exception being that the Jedi is not allowed to interfere against laws or tradition (thus skavery on tattooein was something qui-gon didn't directly appose.) but clearly that fellow was subject to no such suggestions. All you did was deny responsibility of the incident just because you didn't want to gain one conflict, that is not only extremely selfish on your characters part, but it is metagaming for being a silly ls paladin, and personally I think that dm was incorrect in rewarding that behaviour. That might have been a valid in character justification, but it should only be that, denial for murder.
Then finally, was everyone at the table satisfied with what you did? This game is a cooperative game first and foremost, if not everyone is having fun, or someone is directly interfering with someone having fun, then that game is functioning wrong, despite what the machanics of the game state.
I hope the poster doesn't mind, just playing devils accocate, having seen many games end up like this in dnd I have first hand experience of player conflict getting out of hand and interfering with fun around the table. So I feel slightly best towards that.