The crux of the Conflict/Morality mechanic is that the PC has to be faced with situations that have the potential to earn them Conflict points in the first place, and not just those from making use of dark side pips on their Force dice when activating powers.

Frankly it's up to the GM to give the players difficult situations where the easier paths to solve a dilemma will generate Conflict points, because they are the "quick and easy" solution. If the GM doesn't do that, then yes a player will be able to rise to Light Side Paragon status pretty easily, because there hasn't been anything to challenge that progression. It's pretty easy for the average person to walk a quarter mile when it's a flat, even surface, the weather is bright, sunny, and pleasantly warm, and you're properly feed. It's a whole 'nother story to walk a quarter mile when it's the middle of a winter night in a freezing downpour in an area you don't know with uneven terrain and there's bear traps scattered between you and your destination.

Resorting to violence as the first response to a problem is worth Conflict, because you didn't explore any alternatives to fighting and went straight to kicking your current opponent's hindquarters. There might be some leeway if the opponents attacked you directly before you could explore an alternate option, but even if your first response is "grab my weapon and start blasting/slicing," that's probably worth a point of Conflict. You could fully attempt to scare off a lesser threat, like a pack of street toughs thru a Coercion check, and while that's probably worth a point of Conflict itself, it's certainly more merciful than chopping them up with a lightsaber simply for crossing your path at a bad time. A GM could potentially award Conflict for using lethal force instead of stun damage if the option's available, but I'd not suggest doing this on a recurring basis; after all, a weapon's a weapon, and part of the reason the classic Jedi carried only a inherently lethal lightsaber was to reinforce that a Jedi's first response shouldn't be "draw my lightsaber."

If you need to get through a door, and your first response is to rip it out of its moorings via the Force without seeing if there's other means to get through the door, namely picking/slicing the lock or seeking another way in, that's worth a substantial amount of Conflict because your first response was unnecessary property damage. Qui-Gon in TPM probably got a few Conflict points for trying to carve his way through the doors to the bridge of the Trade Federation ship, but the player accepted that it needed to be done and figured that as long as he doesn't make a routine habit of that kind of behavior he should be okay in terms of him remaining a Light Side Paragon.

Torture, both mental and especially physical, is going to generate lots of Conflict because you're inflicting unnecessary harm on somebody that's pretty much at your mercy. Same will killing an opponent you've already defeated, since they're no longer a threat to you.

The Conflict/Morality system is no more inherently flawed than Obligation or Duty are, and I've heard of games where the GM never gave his EotE players the opportunity to reduce their Obligations, something the rulebook says the GM should offer, either as an adventure reward in lieu of credits or even as the major reward of an adventure. And until Andy Fischer made a guest appearance on the Order 66 podcast to suggest the average Duty award per session should be around 5 points, there were a number of GMs that were only handing out 1 or 2 Duty points per session, making for a very anemic progression to the group's next Contribution Rank.

If anything, the core "flaw" is that most players who are familiar with the Star Wars universe, when playing Force users if not actual aspiring Jedi, are going to take their cues on how to act from the Jedi we see on the screen, most notably Obi-Wan and RotJ!Luke as general examples of "What Would a Proper Jedi Knight Do?" and will thus act far more noble than they might were they playing a smuggler or bounty hunter. Thus, they'll see situations that might generate Conflict and try to avoid them simply because "it's what a Jedi would do." And if the players are going to act like good guys instead of a pack of blood-crazed murder hobos, then I'd say they should receive a benefit for not stooping to their darker urges.

That is a great point - the Morality system actually encourages and rewards good characters without unduly punishing PCs that fall to the dark side.

Also, since Morality is a "core book" mechanic and optional it allows GMs to run a game where the force users have Morality, while the non-force users use Duty/Obligation which recreates the feel of the movies and EU that force users are particularly susceptible to their darker impulses and the amplified impact this can have on external events.

A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing.

This reminds me of another idea I had for Morality: use the objective system per RAW, however, no one knows their exact score -- the GM keeps track of it all in a hidden fashion. Moreover, no one even has a feel for their current rating, only the rating of their fellows .

At any time, a player can ask for his relative ranking to anyone else, but that's it. A might have a vague sense that B's Morality is significantly lower than his own and that C's is somewhat higher than his, but A has no sense of his own score (beyond what the players themselves can mentally keep track of). The result is that everyone gets a general, but completely unquantifiable feeling of their relative morality but no clear sense of the absolute, sorta like real life...

That's a pretty interesting idea Lorne.

it would certainly remove a significant portion of the meta-gaming out of Morality, since the PC won't know whether those next few Conflict points will be enough to push them to the dark side or not, especially if they've been pretty cavalier with things like using dark side pips to generate Force points or being a bit more excessive with the violence than the situation might require. Or if a really bad result on a Fear check (something that it seems a number of GMs tend to overlook, myself included) could generate Conflict as well if a Despair result comes up.

That said, the one possible drawback I see is that not knowing their current Morality scores might lead players to act even more like a bunch of Lawful Good Paladins and shy away from any sort of action that might generate Conflict.

Admittedly, one sure way to know where your PC stands is if they reach the higher/lower ends of the Morality spectrum, and start getting the adjustments to their wound and strain thresholds.

Another virtue of this technique would be that the GM doesn't need to worry about tracking Conflict and adjusting Morality during precious game time. He can resolve it all post-session and also, since it's now "behind the screen" fudge it if he feels the need. He can even just assign "light side points" on a per-encounter basis and dispense with the random roll altogether (since the die roll is mostly there to discourage gaming the system).

And if the GM feels that, as you point out, there's not enough information on the player's side, that could be rectified in any number of ways -- I'd favor something like NPC reactions. Since the GM is playing them anyway, they could react warmly or fearfully depending on what extremes they approach. If the Hutt thinks your his kind of scum, well then...

Jedi Ronin,

With Qui-Gon, he didn't try to rationalize or justify his decisions beyond "it was the will of the Living Force," and in some of the EU stories that came out not long after TPM, there were some instances where he turned out to be wrong, and openly admitted such; he was very much a "trust your instincts" type of Jedi.

On a personal level I'd like to think that before he became part of the Jedi Council and thus an enforcer of the institution, that Yoda was of a similar mindset to Qui-Gon, not being quite as strict about the wording of the Jedi Code, treating as "a good set of ideas" rather than a formalized belief system, and that he was more willing to simply place his trust in the Force, and that it was after centuries of being on the Council and then Grand Master that he started getting caught up in the dogma of the Code. I'd also like to think that had Sidious' plans been thwarted, he'd have been at the forefront of some much needed revisions in the Jedi Order, but that's probably wishful thinking on my part since Yoda pretty much needed to have his arse knocked up around his ears to really grasp just how flawed the Jedi Order had become by that point.

Your example of Jacen Solo and his fall to the dark side is a good example of the kind of self-rationalization that can frequently lead a person into darkness; if one builds an entire philosophy upon "the ends always justify the means," you're heading down a very slippery slope. Anakin did very much the same, siding with Palpatine who he knew was evil (being the guy that was ultimately responsible for the Clone Wars in the first place by manipulating both sides) for a very self-serving objective that wound up becoming a self-fulling prophecy.

Actually, that GM gave me a flat out +10 morality bonus doing that.

"...You've cited Yoda correctly. That's exactly what your supposed to do."

His rule is "If you can back up your action with something Yoda, Obi Wan, or another famous jedi actually said in a movie (Anakin doesn't count, but Luke does....) you gain morality."

As a GM, that resolution would strike me as adherence to the letter but ignoring the spirit of the Code. It's the same as a lawful good Paladin refusing to break the law to accomplish a greater good. And it's not even like "killing a baby." It's more like "trespassing on someone's property to save a dying innocent." Compassion, I would argue, is at the heart of any good law. And acting without compassion is absolutely conflict-worthy in my game.

You're familiar with Jacen Solo's progression to Darth Caedus, yes, fellow EU junkie? At the beginning of the novel Betrayal , Jacen is rationalizing all these deaths that he's causing in light-side-Jedi terms. He's defending himself and Ben, and he basically tells himself that it's not a big deal that he's sending all these people shooting at him to their deaths. There is no death, there is the Force.

And then all throughout that series he kept praising Palpatine, of all people, for his adherence to the law, and how he went about gaining power through the appropriate channels. Eventually Jacen reaches the conclusion that the Rebel Alliance were the bad guys for breaking the law and throwing the galaxy into a Civil War. He slowly corrupted himself through his thought processes, all the while telling himself that he was the good guy. And finally he was able to drop all pretenses, divorce himself completely of the Jedi Code, and begin to act with impunity as a Sith Lord.

Someone here already mentioned Atris from KotOR II. This is another example of someone who has striven so hard to maintain the Jedi Order that she has completely lost sight of its heart.

That's a great point.

It's also what makes for a great villain. A great villain doesn't view themselves as evil - or at the very least not evil for the sake of being evil. They have reasons for doing what they're doing. Even Sidious, who is perhaps a villain who does view himself as evil views the Jedi and their Code as limiting and naive. Ultimately, I think the Sith perspective is that they are following and amplifying and "serving" the natural order of things and that any other path is foolish. As Sidious tempted Anakin - the Jedi have a dogmatic and narrow view of the Force that limits them and blinds them to reality.

The Jedi Code has it's flaws but it does act as a counter to rationalizations that lead to the dark side.

This is partly why I like the Qui-gon so much as a character - he didn't ignore the Jedi Code on occasion because he was rebellious but when the Living Force told him to go another way. I think Qui-gon is a good example of putting the "Will of the Force" before a Code. The Code may contain wisdom accumulated over millennia but the entire point of the Code is to guide a Jedi away from the dark side and it doesn't take the place of listening to the Force.

Like any other grouping of rules, The Code may've been, at one time, a loose collection of stories and ideas that become formalized to define the duties and responsibilities of an organization and members of that organization. But like most of these rulesets, as it is debated and rewritten and edited, it becomes more and more rigid and self-serving and becomes less about serving the people under the Code and all about the Code itself. There may certainly be wisdom hidden amongst it's many ripples and folds, but that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule by this time in the universe. Diverging from the Code should definitely be cause for a conflict point, because the character is pulling away from something that, assuming they are on the Jedi path, they've been taught and had ingrained in themselves for years by this time. Depending on how far the deviation should determine the conflict. OTOH, if a character is not trying to live up to any such Code and is an independent force user, then there's no conflict for moving away from something they've never been taught or don't believe in. But none of that means that they start to turn to the dark side - the idea that questioning your motivations and ideals pulls you down a path of evil is a bit suspect, IMHO.

Hmmm. Greater Good is a slippery slope too, because there's the same ends justify the means sprinkled in. If I spend this DSP, I can save my best friend's life! And then I can do the same thing with my friend, and then my acquaintance, and maybe even the random stranger if I have the reaction time to pull it off.

And yet, from all that saving people, you're slowly turning dark, particularly if you roll a 1. (4 Conflict, 1 on the die, 3 points of evil....)

With the Compassion/Hate mechanic, presumably you hate the fact you have to save all these weaklings around you?

I agree with Qui-gon. He wasn't rationalizing. But the tendency to just go with your feelings or your perception of the force opens a character up to self deception and rationalizing getting closer to the dark side. I don't think Qui-gon fell prey to this but others could who take his path without the same virtue as Qui-gon.

And Yoda did say in Ep II that too many masters in the order had become arrogant. So I agree he could have been a reformer.

Angelalex,

It depends on how you narratively interpret it: it's not all deliberate or pondered or conscious. You feel fear for your friends life or anger at whoever put them in danger or whatever when using the force.

It's not like a character is walled off from the dark side like and they get to consciously pick and choose how they will feel. Sure, through training and meditation they can gain greater control but this isn't a prefect process. The character is still fallible.

And 4 Conflict for the worst Morality die roll isn't that bad. Anakin slaughtered a village of sand people and that wasn't enough to make him fall to the dark side. Using dark side force points is a minor flirtation with the dark side. Narratively you can treat gaining conflict but still increasing Morality with the die roll as the character doing a good job of resisting - however imperfectly - the dark side.

It can also fun to play a character that never gives in to any dark impulses or feelings even a little. And that's a perfectly fine way to play a character with its own drawbacks and consequences.

But the Morality mechanic and the force die is not designed to enforce or encourage this as the "correct" way to play a Jedi.

The force die is a big part of the lure of the dark side. By design. And using dark side pips isn't a big dark side transgression but rather a small nudge or a small experience with the dark side. Consistently doing the things on the Conflict table are big deals as that's a concerted character effort to do and be evil.

Just using dark side force points is a good way to bring the dark side into a game even for characters that are light side paragons (or are seeking to become so).

Treating all situations as morally categorical is its own form of slippery slope: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." (as ironically self-defeating as that statement itself is, the heart of it is rational). When one calculates every situation, one is at risk for becoming cold and indifferent, desensitized. It would be no better than if a machine were weighing the ethical pros and cons of each situation and coming to the inevitable conclusion, devoid of any actual compassion but only caring about the obvious and absolute "moral outcome."

So essentially, the argument for the slippery slope can move one to inaction, which is an evil all its own. This is wisdom that we as humans innately posses: if we do nothing to help those around us, if we fail to act with compassion when compassion is called for, it creates in us a sense of conflict: we want to do good, but we are paralyzed by fear of complications, eventualities, or simply "what-ifs."

A person that, for fear of getting burned himself, does nothing to save his neighbor from a burning building will be forever haunted by his cowardice.

Even though rationalizations and justifications can be made at the time or any later date.

Sure. But in this case, it's sort of like calling on Satan to give you the strength to run into the burning building. Cause hey, there's a permanent fire where he lives, right?

A 'Faustian Pact' of sorts.

I'm loving this thread, to me it shows just how varied Morality is to each individual person.

I can't really agree with that one. There is no malevolent/demonic personality driving the heroes toward an end that suits him in the above scenario; there is simply the dark side of the Force. The dark side is seductive because of the greed that is common to all humans (and most sentient species in the galaxy at large): it offers power, and power corrupts.

Reminds me of an old classic...

*

To put it bluntly, at least in the Star Wars universe, "man doesn't need the help." Not that help isn't there for the asking, at least when it comes to the Hutts or other crime syndicates! Enter Obligation.

* (caption—Calvin: "Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbes: "I'm not sure that man needs the help")

Sure. But in this case, it's sort of like calling on Satan to give you the strength to run into the burning building. Cause hey, there's a permanent fire where he lives, right?

A 'Faustian Pact' of sorts.

I can't really agree with that one. There is no malevolent/demonic personality driving the heroes toward an end that suits him in the above scenario; there is simply the dark side of the Force. The dark side is seductive because of the greed that is common to all humans (and most sentient species in the galaxy at large): it offers power, and power corrupts.

Reminds me of an old classic...

*

To put it bluntly, at least in the Star Wars universe, "man doesn't need the help." Not that help isn't there for the asking, at least when it comes to the Hutts or other crime syndicates! Enter Obligation.

Anyway, if you're talking specifically about converting dark side pips to Force Points, it's not at all a Faustian Pact. Depending on the PC's intentions, it can be like stealing bread to feed a hungry child, or like stealing that hungry child's last piece of bread to feed yourself. Either one can get you into trouble, but if your intentions are kind and selfless, then chances are you will at least maintain a sense of peace about the situation afterwards. And if your intentions are inherently selfish, well then you probably rationalize and (likely) drop your Morality score a bit. But in either case, it's nowhere close to "a deal with the devil." Those kinds of roleplaying elements are the focuses of sessions, or even campaigns, and are much further-reaching than a piddly 1 Conflict.

Essentially, I think that it's possible to read too much into the Conflict mechanic, and it's definitely reading too much into it if you're saying that converting a dark side pip to save a friend is like making a Satanic pact.

* (caption—Calvin: "Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbes: "I'm not sure that man needs the help")

Agree with everything about that.

I can give the additional interpretation it the burning building example: It can be simply fear. Fear to loose someone. It can be the thought of not loosing someone not because you want to help him, but that he want to keep him for yourself (looking at you, Anakin).

For me, the dark side "offers" nothing. It is. And it is a part of the Force itself (that´s why the Sith seeing the Jedi way as a dogma. They don´t want to explore the whole thing) not an entity.

So with the dark side pips, there are hundreds of interpretations, why this Force roll helps to corrode your morality. You don´t even have to think about it, nor even tell it. Maybe it is something that clicks deep down of the Jedi, without him even consciously knowing.

I´m getting more and more to the meaning in throw away the penalities in strain and flip totally the more I think about it.

In other scenarios, the DP flip is to allow the player to inject their own narrative.

GM: "There's a wide stream in front of you, you don't know how deep. I see nobody has a 10 foot pole..."

Player: (flips DP) "What do you mean? I have a collapsible one in my backpack..."

In the case of the Force, it seems to me the point, in addition to the use of Strain, is to allow the player to narrate to their character's benefit (or the story's benefit, however they want to view it). So...

GM: "Oh, you rolled all dark pips? 'You reach out to the Force, but the baying in the distance is getting closer...the Anubas have caught your scent. If only your companions weren't so slow, you wouldn't have to stand here helping them down this stupid cliff.'"

Player: (flips DP) "It would be wrong to leave them to the Anubas. I concentrate on my feelings and try to put aside my fear (spends Strain) and help my friends the best way I can."

It seems to me that to be consistent with other usage of the DP flip, this should mitigate any Conflict or the idea that you're "calling on the dark side".

In other scenarios, the DP flip is to allow the player to inject their own narrative.

GM: "There's a wide stream in front of you, you don't know how deep. I see nobody has a 10 foot pole..."

Player: (flips DP) "What do you mean? I have a collapsible one in my backpack..."

In the case of the Force, it seems to me the point, in addition to the use of Strain, is to allow the player to narrate to their character's benefit (or the story's benefit, however they want to view it). So...

GM: "Oh, you rolled all dark pips? 'You reach out to the Force, but the baying in the distance is getting closer...the Anubas have caught your scent. If only your companions weren't so slow, you wouldn't have to stand here helping them down this stupid cliff.'"

Player: (flips DP) "It would be wrong to leave them to the Anubas. I concentrate on my feelings and try to put aside my fear (spends Strain) and help my friends the best way I can."

It seems to me that to be consistent with other usage of the DP flip, this should mitigate any Conflict or the idea that you're "calling on the dark side".

Yes, I do not think flipping/strain make no sense. But I´m thinking about raising the temptation for the player to use it. "It´s only a conflict, it´s worth it"

So, the seduction of the character can come into reality by the seduction of the player. Always loved mechanics that reflect feelings in reality in games.

Or...

I wave the Destiny Point in front of the player considering flipping one. "You want this...good. I feel your anger...take your jedi force power. Flip this and your journey to the Dark Side begins..."

Said in my best Sidious voice. I'm no Ian McDirmid, but I can do a decent one.

If Player Flips it anyway...

"You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side! Oh, and your power works great. Your friend is now safe from the cliff. But is he safe from you?"

(In my best Vader voice)

That's rather one-sided. Then the player isn't really in control of the narrative, are they? That would be like the GM adding setback dice every time a player flips a DP for a combat upgrade.

What I am noticing about the use of the dark side points is, it has a pretty substantial cost. It requires the flip of a Destiny Point, taking 1 or more strain (depending on the number of points used) AND taking 1 or more conflict (again, depending on the number of points being used). This kind of cost really feels to me like the devs don't want you using these dark side points most of the time and only delving into them when the situation is critical.

This, to me, fits reasonably with the movies however. And while the devs may have stated they expect people will use Dark Side Points, this could mean that they expect periodically, situations will come up (especially for early levels of play) where it's a real tough spot and you get a bad roll.. you need that one or two more force points to save your buddy from falling off a cliff. So you dig a little deeper, you temporarily let your anger or fear fuel your power and you save your friend. It has a heightened dramatic narrative, like when Luke comes leaping out of hiding during the fight in Cloud City, he is given an extra push to make a strong comeback but he doesn't succumb to the dark side by any means. And in the situation of saving your friend(s) from the fall, I would think the couple points of conflict from the dark side points is really not that bad. I don't think the expectation is that you would do this several times through a single session on a regular basis.

Or...

I wave the Destiny Point in front of the player considering flipping one. "You want this...good. I feel your anger...take your jedi force power. Flip this and your journey to the Dark Side begins..."

Said in my best Sidious voice. I'm no Ian McDirmid, but I can do a decent one.

If Player Flips it anyway...

"You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side! Oh, and your power works great. Your friend is now safe from the cliff. But is he safe from you?"

(In my best Vader voice)

Well, that's the thing about this system. The meaning to the story and your character of using a DP, gaining Strain and Conflict is up to the player and GM.

You want to treat gaining several Conflict as teetering on the edge of falling to the dark side you're free do to so. The system supports that. You can create a character that views the Force and the dark side this way.

But the system doesn't enforce this view. Gaining several Conflict EVERY session still means that on average your Morality will go up over time. Gain 5 or so Conflict every session you're not likely going to become a Paragon of the Light Side but you're also unlikely to fall to the dark side.

Gain 8+ Conflict every session and you are going to consistently lose Morality.

So, the system mechanically supports the view that Jedi are not perfect and that they do in fact face issues of experiencing fear, hatred, anger, etc. If they didn't then the Jedi Code wouldn't exist because it wouldn't be necessary. But Jedi are not perfect and the dark side is something to be ever watchful for. But there is a really big difference mechanically between gaining 3 Conflict most sessions and gaining 8+ Conflict most sessions. The system *tends* to support the view that a little Conflict is not teetering on the edge of the dark side abyss. But you are free to narratively treat it any way you'd like.

Also, when Morality is triggered for a character they have the opportunity to double their Morality gain/loss - so a PC could easliy have a story arc of a steady slide towards the dark side but in a heroic moment when it counted they chose the light side having improved themselves as a good person and get a big boost of Morality.

What I am noticing about the use of the dark side points is, it has a pretty substantial cost. It requires the flip of a Destiny Point, taking 1 or more strain (depending on the number of points used) AND taking 1 or more conflict (again, depending on the number of points being used). This kind of cost really feels to me like the devs don't want you using these dark side points most of the time and only delving into them when the situation is critical.

This, to me, fits reasonably with the movies however. And while the devs may have stated they expect people will use Dark Side Points, this could mean that they expect periodically, situations will come up (especially for early levels of play) where it's a real tough spot and you get a bad roll.. you need that one or two more force points to save your buddy from falling off a cliff. So you dig a little deeper, you temporarily let your anger or fear fuel your power and you save your friend. It has a heightened dramatic narrative, like when Luke comes leaping out of hiding during the fight in Cloud City, he is given an extra push to make a strong comeback but he doesn't succumb to the dark side by any means. And in the situation of saving your friend(s) from the fall, I would think the couple points of conflict from the dark side points is really not that bad. I don't think the expectation is that you would do this several times through a single session on a regular basis.

This also does a good job of bringing in the lure of the dark side as the quick and easy path to power.

Also, assuming you're running a "standard" setting where the PCs are non-Jedi discovering their powers, initial use of Dark Side Points can reinforce that they're still figuring out right and wrong, and don't understand the dangers of what they're going.

It's important to remembrer what "calling on the dark side" is in the movies.

It's about the emotion and purpose behind your actions as well as the actions themselves.

Killing a bunch of Padawans hiding in the Jedi Council chambers is going to get you a lot of Conflict regardless of your emotional state. Doing so with hate or anger will add more Conflict (as per the F&D beta). It also says "Obviously evil or overly selfish acts combined with the main transgression should always add from 1 to 5 additional points. Grey areas, such as using [DS] results to generate [FP] for selfish but not a truly evil action receives a minimum +1 Conflict, but possibly 2 to 5 more Conflict."

Large Conflict gains are driven by the act itself: is the action evil or selfish?

The intent and emotional motivation modulate that.

So we can reasonably expect that good Jedi Knights still experience some amount of fear, anger, hatred, selfishness, desire, etc and will therefor be gaining Conflict occassionally. That's a perfectly reasonable way of interpreting gaining Conflict by using DS force points - you use the force while experiencing these emotions and they play some part of your motivation. But what's MORE important is the overall motivation for the action and not the emotional component. Saving someone from falling to their death is good and the right thing to do. Just because the character feels fear while saving them doesnt change the basic fact that the act is good - even if it earns a little Conflict. It just means they're "human" and that darker emotions are always lurking there.

The Emperor first tries to get Luke to give in to his darker emotions - fear and hatred - primarily in order to get him to ACT and DO SOMETHING that will push him to the dark side.

I've said this, but I'll say it again: even though the Jedi (and the Force) are a meditative order partially based on Buddhism/Daoism humans aren't able to wall themselves off and completely control their emotions. Yes, the Jedi strive to be at peace and calm as much as possible and truly great masters can pull it off. But most Jedi will spend their whole lives with some ebb and flow of feeling the emotions of the dark side and then choosing peace. And this ebb and flow generates some Conflict.

"Obviously evil or overly selfish acts combined with the main transgression should always add from 1 to 5 additional points. Grey areas, such as using [DS] results to generate [FP] for selfish but not a truly evil action receives a minimum +1 Conflict , but possibly 2 to 5 more Conflict."

Doesn't the bolded part of the quote suggest that using [DS] result to generate [FP] for NON-selfish reasons shouldn't generate Conflict at all? Or is that +1, and maybe 2-5, in addition to the basic Conflict penalty?

"Obviously evil or overly selfish acts combined with the main transgression should always add from 1 to 5 additional points. Grey areas, such as using [DS] results to generate [FP] for selfish but not a truly evil action receives a minimum +1 Conflict , but possibly 2 to 5 more Conflict."

Doesn't the bolded part of the quote suggest that using [DS] result to generate [FP] for NON-selfish reasons shouldn't generate Conflict at all? Or is that +1, and maybe 2-5, in addition to the basic Conflict penalty?

Yeah, that's a grey area =)

My interpretation is that if you're spending DS points to use a force power you will gain additional Conflict if the act is selfish but not if the act is not selfish.

It seems like the awarding Conflict boils down to this:

* Using DS results to gain FP when activating force powers

* Evil and/or selish actions gain Conflict

Intent modifies Conflict gains:

* If these actions are particularly evil or selfish an additional Conflict award is warranted

* Using DS results to gain FP when activating force powers when acting selfishly or evily an additional Conflict award is warranted.

In my games if a player uses dark side but for a good reason that is not damaging another individual then it still costs the destiny flip amd the strain. However if they use a balanced light and dark pt or pts (same amount) then they don't produce conflict. If their action leads to someone getting hurt then it always causes conflict

"Obviously evil or overly selfish acts combined with the main transgression should always add from 1 to 5 additional points. Grey areas, such as using [DS] results to generate [FP] for selfish but not a truly evil action receives a minimum +1 Conflict , but possibly 2 to 5 more Conflict."

Doesn't the bolded part of the quote suggest that using [DS] result to generate [FP] for NON-selfish reasons shouldn't generate Conflict at all? Or is that +1, and maybe 2-5, in addition to the basic Conflict penalty?

Yeah, that's a grey area =)

My interpretation is that if you're spending DS points to use a force power you will gain additional Conflict if the act is selfish but not if the act is not selfish.

It seems like the awarding Conflict boils down to this:

* Using DS results to gain FP when activating force powers

* Evil and/or selish actions gain Conflict

Intent modifies Conflict gains:

* If these actions are particularly evil or selfish an additional Conflict award is warranted

* Using DS results to gain FP when activating force powers when acting selfishly or evily an additional Conflict award is warranted.

I would interpret this the same way as Jedi Ronin has. That the bolded text is indicating a further adjustment to the amount of conflict gained. However, I would also agree this is not crystal clear and is easily open to interpretation.

Or...

I wave the Destiny Point in front of the player considering flipping one. "You want this...good. I feel your anger...take your jedi force power. Flip this and your journey to the Dark Side begins..."

Said in my best Sidious voice. I'm no Ian McDirmid, but I can do a decent one.

If Player Flips it anyway...

"You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side! Oh, and your power works great. Your friend is now safe from the cliff. But is he safe from you?"

(In my best Vader voice)

That's rather one-sided. Then the player isn't really in control of the narrative, are they? That would be like the GM adding setback dice every time a player flips a DP for a combat upgrade.

It's certainly a little premature. 1 Conflict is in no way "the begin of your journey to the dark side." Your morality can't decrease if you have 1 Conflict at the end of the session.

Now, if you had performed the power in such a way as converting, say, 3-4 dark side pips to Force Points, using them to grip the bad guy and toss him off the cliff with telekinesis while simultaneously saving your friend, and you did all in this anger or abject fear, that act would be worth several conflict. I would say that using the Force in such a way that (using the Force to purposefully send a legitimate threat tumbling to his demise) would warrant at least a +5 Conflict, if not +10.

Anyway, my main point is that yes, using dark side pips to fuel Force Powers can be a slippery slope if it becomes a habit, but one such occurrence every now and then does not make for a sure decent into evilness.