Certain point of view is right. Certain point of view. Certain point of view. Everybody has their certain point of view.

Can we all agree to disagree and lock this thread to prevent another drawn out, ten million page debate on morality? I swear, Force and Destiny is such a trigger subject.

The system isn't presented as optional, one aspect is.

Since you can choose to use Obligation or Duty instead, it entirely is. That said, if running F&D and you don't have access to the other cores, then a GM shouldn't have any issues focussing sessions around Morality, the main game mechanic. Also it's easy enough to take enough information off of the forums themselves to use the basics of Obligation or Duty if wanted.

It's like running Vampire: The Requim and worried that your player's characters will only gain humanity because the player's choose to have their character's just sit there and mope about being vampires and GM only let's them feed off bunnies and other furry woodland creatures.

But Revanchist7 is right, that's a whole new topic altogether.

And then at the end of the day the game relies on the fact that the GM is the final arbiter. If you do nothing or avoid situations or some other course to avoid conflict but at the same time do nothing on the light side of things, it is well within their power to not call for a roll.

Then why have the rules at all?

If the GM has to step in then the rules have failed.

Okay, I'd like to point out that part of the GM's duty is not just the person who creates the adventure, but also the person who makes sure the adventure runs smoothly. That includes rule judgment and rule arbitration from time to time. The GM has to step in and arbitrate the rules in ANY role-playing game, from the Hero system to, say, Everyone is John. If you want a rules system where the GM doesn't have to arbitrate any rules, then it's time to retire from role-playing and switch to board games instead. I'm not trying to be snarky here, as there are a lot of great board games out there. What I'm saying is that a role-playing game gives players the chance to do anything they want in any way they want, and it's just human nature to want to game the system, even a little bit. So developers have the same problem GMs do, only exponentially harder. They're trying to create a system of rules that can't be exploited or broken, but they're trying to out think hundreds, if not thousands, of players.

I appreciate FFG stepping up and saying that the GM does need to use his or her best judgment and not let a player steamroll their way through the system. It's an admission that lets the GM know the kind of decisions he or she will have to make over the course of a campaign.

I think part of the flaws of the morality system is that it's based around a theme found in the movies that does not necessarily fit with the theme of all campaigns. That theme being that bad people are the ones that give into temptation and good people do not. If this isn't the theme to your game, you're likely to get less mileage out of morality. It's not totally broken, but it's flaws show more

A GM should be providing that temptation. That is part of using the morality mechanic. There is a chart in the GM section on actions that cause conflict. A gm should use it and present scenarios that provide hard choices.

If you are not you are making the rise to paragon too easy.

I want to hear from someone where their game was ruined by someone sleeping to paragon. Even if this happened I really don't see how it is such a failure. This time light side dark side mechanics are minimal and can be used to whatever degree people want be that comprehensively or minimally.

So even if this perceived issue is an actual problem, how does it negatively impact the game?

So even if this perceived issue is an actual problem, how does it negatively impact the game?

The biggest negative impact on the game I see is flavor: Primarily the use of dark side points/pips (DSP) on force rolls.

As I understand it, converting a DSP to fuel a force power (or anything else) is a mechanical representation of "drawing on the dark side of the force." The 1d10 default for the the roll means without conflict a player is picking up 5.5 morality/game, so to break even , a player can, over average, flip 5.5 DSP to LSP per session.

That seems like a lot. I could be wrong, my frame of reference may be off due to my previous experience running non-force centric campaigns.

An additional flavor issue I've pointed out before is that it allows the *passive* accumulation of morality, which represents becoming a light-side paragon. I think that title/status should require the player to be more pro-active.

Also, the counter-point seems an almost monotonous repeat of the following sentiment:

If you have a party of 4 force-users, and you have to to come up with a handful of ways to tempt every one of them every play session to balance out an otherwise fairly arbitrary game mechanic (arbitrary in the sense of it's magnitude, a 1d10) That's a lot of extra work, man...

You may agree, you may disagree, but it doesn't change my opinion.

The system isn't presented as optional, one aspect is.

Since you can choose to use Obligation or Duty instead, it entirely is. That said, if running F&D and you don't have access to the other cores, then a GM shouldn't have any issues focussing sessions around Morality, the main game mechanic. Also it's easy enough to take enough information off of the forums themselves to use the basics of Obligation or Duty if wanted.

No, this statement is entirely inaccurate. First, the Morality system is never presented as being option, only an aspect (specifically "Triggering Morality") is really clearly optional. Obligation and Duty are in no way sufficient as complete substitutes for Morality, and the previous systems have really hand-waved over using them as a substitute. The morality change is based on an effect of the core dice mechanic (dark and light side points/pips), so swapping out a different mechanic name for the exact same function solves nothing. It's just a lazy substitution that ignores the problem.

Oh and you misspelled "focusing" since you seem to think spelling errors bear explicit mention in messages.

So even if this perceived issue is an actual problem, how does it negatively impact the game?

The biggest negative impact on the game I see is flavor: Primarily the use of dark side points/pips (DSP) on force rolls.

As I understand it, converting a DSP to fuel a force power (or anything else) is a mechanical representation of "drawing on the dark side of the force." The 1d10 default for the the roll means without conflict a player is picking up 5.5 morality/game, so to break even , a player can, over average, flip 5.5 DSP to LSP per session.

That seems like a lot. I could be wrong, my frame of reference may be off due to my previous experience running non-force centric campaigns.

An additional flavor issue I've pointed out before is that it allows the *passive* accumulation of morality, which represents becoming a light-side paragon. I think that title/status should require the player to be more pro-active.

Also, the counter-point seems an almost monotonous repeat of the following sentiment:

A GM should be providing that temptation. That is part of using the morality mechanic. There is a chart in the GM section on actions that cause conflict. A gm should use it and present scenarios that provide hard choices.

If you are not you are making the rise to paragon too easy.

If you have a party of 4 force-users, and you have to to come up with a handful of ways to tempt every one of them every play session to balance out an otherwise fairly arbitrary game mechanic (arbitrary in the sense of it's magnitude, a 1d10) That's a lot of extra work, man...

You may agree, you may disagree, but it doesn't change my opinion.

You are overthinking it. You do not have to come up with a separate thing for every character. You just should be coming up with challenging situations. And yes Force and Destiny wants you to up your game as a GM.

A GM should be providing that temptation. That is part of using the morality mechanic. There is a chart in the GM section on actions that cause conflict. A gm should use it and present scenarios that provide hard choices.

If you are not you are making the rise to paragon too easy.

If you have a party of 4 force-users, and you have to to come up with a handful of ways to tempt every one of them every play session to balance out an otherwise fairly arbitrary game mechanic (arbitrary in the sense of it's magnitude, a 1d10) That's a lot of extra work, man...

You may agree, you may disagree, but it doesn't change my opinion.

It's not as hard as it sounds, in a lot of cases it's actually already a part of the normal adventuring process, the GM just has to keep it in mind and make a note when it goes down.

You have to get into the corporate compound, but you don't have access.

Suzy distracts one of the workmen at lunch while Steve pockets his code cylinder.

Suzy gets a conflict for lying, and Steve gets 2 for theft.

Later Kevin is slicing the computer to find the location of the Lost Valley of the Dinosaurs Jedi, and uploads a virus to wipe out the company mainframe while he's at it. He gains 3 Conflict for destruction of property.

While shooting their way out Jimmy flips a pip and takes 1.

It's not as hard as it sounds, in a lot of cases it's actually already a part of the normal adventuring process, the GM just has to keep it in mind and make a note when it goes down.

You have to get into the corporate compound, but you don't have access.

Suzy distracts one of the workmen at lunch while Steve pockets his code cylinder.

Suzy gets a conflict for lying, and Steve gets 2 for theft.

Later Kevin is slicing the computer to find the location of the Lost Valley of the Dinosaurs Jedi, and uploads a virus to wipe out the company mainframe while he's at it. He gains 3 Conflict for destruction of property.

While shooting their way out Jimmy flips a pip and takes 1.

I kinda see what you're saying, but the examples you're giving pretty much fly directly into the exceptions explicitly written into table 9-2. The lying isn't for personal gain, it's to avoid conflict. The theft is from a superior foe that afford to lose the cylinder. If they're pulling a B&E for personal gain, it's a problem. If they're doing it for save lives or support the alliance, then that's pretty clearly outside the intent of that chart. The table goes out of it's way to describe how the penalties are situationally dependent and the text explicitly states:

"Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded,a s some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in others."

What you're describing is just blanket application with no consideration context whatsoever.

I mean, this whole thread is full of "it works when you use it right" but your its-so-easy example is clearly not in line with the RAW.

And don't throw some quasi-clever "point of view" crap as a response, that's just tired now.

Even if a GM allowed for *passive* gain of morality, I still don't see that as some big negative. It is not like a characters "gains' much by it. He is not going to gain any benefit to activating powers or any ability that puts him above other characters. So where is the negative impact?

Even if a GM allowed for *passive* gain of morality, I still don't see that as some big negative. It is not like a characters "gains' much by it. He is not going to gain any benefit to activating powers or any ability that puts him above other characters. So where is the negative impact?

Dude, I've already addressed everything you just said in this thread:

You're response is akin to saying "it's never important to play a light-side character".

Certain point of view is right. Certain point of view. Certain point of view. Everybody has their certain point of view.

Can we all agree to disagree and lock this thread to prevent another drawn out, ten million page debate on morality? I swear, Force and Destiny is such a trigger subject.

So you want to curtail my ability to have a constructive discussion because of your inability to step away from a thread that's obviously upsetting to you?

How very considerate

Morality isn't really the right way to represent the Jedi. It's not good vs evil.

Jedi are meant to focus on peace and harmony, while the sith are chaotic and passionate. It's not that the Jedi are all goody goody - the Jedi council initially rejected Anakin as a student because he was too unfocused and too prone to negative emotion.

Or... you know.. not.

Not what?

Did you not watch the film? Qui Gonn takes him before the council, they examine him and say 'no, the boy will not be trained'.

What does point of view have to do with it? That's what happened in the film. Sorry you don't like that.

The system isn't presented as optional, one aspect is.

Since you can choose to use Obligation or Duty instead, it entirely is. That said, if running F&D and you don't have access to the other cores, then a GM shouldn't have any issues focussing sessions around Morality, the main game mechanic. Also it's easy enough to take enough information off of the forums themselves to use the basics of Obligation or Duty if wanted.

It's like running Vampire: The Requim and worried that your player's characters will only gain humanity because the player's choose to have their character's just sit there and mope about being vampires and GM only let's them feed off bunnies and other furry woodland creatures.

But Revanchist7 is right, that's a whole new topic altogether.

That you'd need the other games to use those other systems kinda defeats your own argument there!

Aside from the fact the rule is not presented as an option. I'm not sure how much more clear it needs to be. You may choose to ignore the rules and nooone has said you don't have that right, but we are not discussing this on the basis of the rules as written.

Anything else is just straw manning.

So even if this perceived issue is an actual problem, how does it negatively impact the game?

You are overthinking it. You do not have to come up with a separate thing for every character. You just should be coming up with challenging situations. And yes Force and Destiny wants you to up your game as a GM.

Do you realise how patronising that sounds?

Even if a GM allowed for *passive* gain of morality, I still don't see that as some big negative. It is not like a characters "gains' much by it. He is not going to gain any benefit to activating powers or any ability that puts him above other characters. So where is the negative impact?

According to the rules Conflict is only removed if you roll lower at the end of the session, though even that isn't 100% clear. The book says you reduce your Conflict by an amount rolled.

If you roll above your Conflict, your Conflict isn't reduced but you gain morality equal to the difference between your roll and your Conflict. It may be that you always remove Conflict either way, but that isn't clear.

THis means that you can become more moral as a result of certain actions even though you are still conflicted by them. However if you do more severe actions they will be diminished over time, sooner or later.

Even if a GM allowed for *passive* gain of morality, I still don't see that as some big negative. It is not like a characters "gains' much by it. He is not going to gain any benefit to activating powers or any ability that puts him above other characters. So where is the negative impact?

Dude, I've already addressed everything you just said in this thread:

Paragon Benefits

I acknowledge that the mechanical benefit of being a light-side paragon is minor, only 1-2 strain points really. However, if you think that's all that matters about morality, e.g. there is no non-mechanical benefit of high morality, then you're not getting the point of this being a narrative system. High morality means you're playing a light-side character, which is pretty central to narratives of many, many PCs.

You're response is akin to saying "it's never important to play a light-side character".

No. My response is that I do not see the negative impact. Even if you believe that this is some weakness of the morality system, I do not see it as being so egregious that it signifies some huge failure of it. It's a role-playing tool. It is not a device for a DB GM to take away your character for your actions nor is it a device for some DB player to take advantage of in game mechanics form. It is a device that allows for the player to decide how he wants to take his character and allows for GM input too. DBs on either side of the fence can ruin any game so this is nothing new. All this sounds like is nitpicking on some outlying scenario that even if it came to pass would not be the end of the world.

If the system doesn't work for that's fine. As the saying goes you can not please everyone nor do I think FFG is even remotely interested in doing so. I think they are interested in creating a system which can be used or adapted for many play styles that allows for both light and dark side characters without intruding mechanically too heavily on the game.

According to the rules Conflict is only removed if you roll lower at the end of the session, though even that isn't 100% clear. The book says you reduce your Conflict by an amount rolled.

If you roll above your Conflict, your Conflict isn't reduced but you gain morality equal to the difference between your roll and your Conflict. It may be that you always remove Conflict either way, but that isn't clear.

THis means that you can become more moral as a result of certain actions even though you are still conflicted by them. However if you do more severe actions they will be diminished over time, sooner or later.

I still don't see how hard the system is to understand... it might not be perfect, but it's fairly easy to use and understand.

1. At the beginning of the game, the GM rolls a D100, the player with the closest morality score triggers.... that means that like Obligation or Duty, the GM will have to add an event/encounter where his moral strength and weakness is put to the test.

2. During the game, the players gain Conflict by doing some actions like those listed in Table 9-2 at page 324, selfish acts or actions fueled by fear or hatred ; they can also gain Conflict by spending a destiny point (with strain cost) to use Dark Side Pips to pay the cost of activating Force Powers. The Players triggered morality will be face with an event that can earn him conflict depending on his reaction and how he handled the situation, so it's a Roleplayed conflict.

3. At the end of the game, the player has earned a number of Conflict (ex : 6 conflict) ; he then rolls a D10 and substract his Conflict to the result ; the end number (positive or negative) will now increase or lower his morality score.

Exemple : Player earned 7 Conflict during the game, he rolls 4 on his D10 at the end of the game : his morality score drop by 3.

Now... everything is subject to the will of the GM. Enclosed text "How Dark?" at page 325 tells that the GM should choose how severe he his in awarding Conflict.... One GM might award conflict for evil deeds, regardless of intent, others might now award conflict if those evil deeds a fueled by good intentions.

The last thing you should consider is using your own judgement. If the GM didn't add many events that could award Conflict, if the game didn't last long, or if the game span for many game sessions, then the dice rolled should reflect that.

- Scripted AoR game where no encounters test morality are included, don't roll for Conflict at the end of the game.

- Small 3hour game where players faced 1 minor conflict-awarding encounter, roll a D6 at the end of the game instead of a D10.

- Lengthy 15hours game over 3 game sessions where players earned between 7 and 18 conflict, make them roll a D20 instead.

I believe Morality is easier to plan then Obligation or Duty since you don't really have to draw into the players background or story, you can just plan random encounters and add some conflicting choices... In my next game, the players will find a Drug Dealer on the brink of death after an attack by a rival cartel gang. With his last breath, the dying drug dealer ask the players to avenge him, to give him justice and punish those responsible. What will my players do to bring him justice ? How will they punish those responsible ? How they handle that situation could award them Conflict. I didn't have to make that Drug Dealer the players cousin, assassinated by some evil Bounty Hunter to make a point and have the player feel the need to pay up his obligation.

Anyway, I hope it cleared a few things for you guys.

It's not as hard as it sounds, in a lot of cases it's actually already a part of the normal adventuring process, the GM just has to keep it in mind and make a note when it goes down.

You have to get into the corporate compound, but you don't have access.

Suzy distracts one of the workmen at lunch while Steve pockets his code cylinder.

Suzy gets a conflict for lying, and Steve gets 2 for theft.

Later Kevin is slicing the computer to find the location of the Lost Valley of the Dinosaurs Jedi, and uploads a virus to wipe out the company mainframe while he's at it. He gains 3 Conflict for destruction of property.

While shooting their way out Jimmy flips a pip and takes 1.

I kinda see what you're saying, but the examples you're giving pretty much fly directly into the exceptions explicitly written into table 9-2. The lying isn't for personal gain, it's to avoid conflict. The theft is from a superior foe that afford to lose the cylinder. If they're pulling a B&E for personal gain, it's a problem. If they're doing it for save lives or support the alliance, then that's pretty clearly outside the intent of that chart. The table goes out of it's way to describe how the penalties are situationally dependent and the text explicitly states:

"Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded,a s some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in others."

Context is the issue, which is why I made it a corporate compound and not an Imperial one.

The workman wasn't a superior foe, he's just a guy.

The computer isnt a system of secret imperial bases, its the company mainframe, so the virus scrambles everything from lost valley info to health insurance plans.

The lost valley isn't an Alliance thing, its the players trying to track down a holocron or crystals like you see in the published adventures.

Yeah the company might not be the nicest of organizations, but its not the empire. And while you might need the holocron to help the alliance later or something, right here and now your kinda being a jerk to get it.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't purchased the released book and I'm still going by beta, but didn't the last beta update essentially suggest that you can ignore the morality system, or simply not use it if it doesn't suit your needs?

I know morality is still a contentious topic, not just here, but on other forums as well; so while I understand people may get sick of it, I still think it's an interesting conversation to have.

I'm ambivalent about the system myself. On the one hand, I can appreciate what it tries to do, and it is an "interesting" idea on how to track dark side/light side progression; on the other hand, I personally think it's too ambiguous at times, and the reality is the system kind of seems unnecessary - for me and my group, at least. Unlike Obligation and Duty, there are far less mechanical or narrative benefits beyond the increases/decreases in strain and wound thresholds, and the flipping of dark side or light side points.

According to the rules Conflict is only removed if you roll lower at the end of the session, though even that isn't 100% clear. The book says you reduce your Conflict by an amount rolled.

If you roll above your Conflict, your Conflict isn't reduced but you gain morality equal to the difference between your roll and your Conflict. It may be that you always remove Conflict either way, but that isn't clear.

THis means that you can become more moral as a result of certain actions even though you are still conflicted by them. However if you do more severe actions they will be diminished over time, sooner or later.

I still don't see how hard the system is to understand... it might not be perfect, but it's fairly easy to use and understand.

1. At the beginning of the game, the GM rolls a D100, the player with the closest morality score triggers.... that means that like Obligation or Duty, the GM will have to add an event/encounter where his moral strength and weakness is put to the test.

2. During the game, the players gain Conflict by doing some actions like those listed in Table 9-2 at page 324, selfish acts or actions fueled by fear or hatred ; they can also gain Conflict by spending a destiny point (with strain cost) to use Dark Side Pips to pay the cost of activating Force Powers. The Players triggered morality will be face with an event that can earn him conflict depending on his reaction and how he handled the situation, so it's a Roleplayed conflict.

3. At the end of the game, the player has earned a number of Conflict (ex : 6 conflict) ; he then rolls a D10 and substract his Conflict to the result ; the end number (positive or negative) will now increase or lower his morality score.

Exemple : Player earned 7 Conflict during the game, he rolls 4 on his D10 at the end of the game : his morality score drop by 3.

Now... everything is subject to the will of the GM. Enclosed text "How Dark?" at page 325 tells that the GM should choose how severe he his in awarding Conflict.... One GM might award conflict for evil deeds, regardless of intent, others might now award conflict if those evil deeds a fueled by good intentions.

The last thing you should consider is using your own judgement. If the GM didn't add many events that could award Conflict, if the game didn't last long, or if the game span for many game sessions, then the dice rolled should reflect that.

- Scripted AoR game where no encounters test morality are included, don't roll for Conflict at the end of the game.

- Small 3hour game where players faced 1 minor conflict-awarding encounter, roll a D6 at the end of the game instead of a D10.

- Lengthy 15hours game over 3 game sessions where players earned between 7 and 18 conflict, make them roll a D20 instead.

I believe Morality is easier to plan then Obligation or Duty since you don't really have to draw into the players background or story, you can just plan random encounters and add some conflicting choices... In my next game, the players will find a Drug Dealer on the brink of death after an attack by a rival cartel gang. With his last breath, the dying drug dealer ask the players to avenge him, to give him justice and punish those responsible. What will my players do to bring him justice ? How will they punish those responsible ? How they handle that situation could award them Conflict. I didn't have to make that Drug Dealer the players cousin, assassinated by some evil Bounty Hunter to make a point and have the player feel the need to pay up his obligation.

Anyway, I hope it cleared a few things for you guys.

I don't think I misunderstand the system, just that I don't think it works very well.

The Triggered Morality rule is optional.

Conflict is only lost, according to the book, when Morality is lost. If Morality is gained, even in spite of earned Conflict, then Conflict is not reduced.

If no Conflict is earned, the character will automatically gain Morality. That is the game's default setting; characters speedily becoming more moral regardless of their strengths and weakness which themselves do nothing.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't purchased the released book and I'm still going by beta, but didn't the last beta update essentially suggest that you can ignore the morality system, or simply not use it if it doesn't suit your needs?

I know morality is still a contentious topic, not just here, but on other forums as well; so while I understand people may get sick of it, I still think it's an interesting conversation to have.

I'm ambivalent about the system myself. On the one hand, I can appreciate what it tries to do, and it is an "interesting" idea on how to track dark side/light side progression; on the other hand, I personally think it's too ambiguous at times, and the reality is the system kind of seems unnecessary - for me and my group, at least. Unlike Obligation and Duty, there are far less mechanical or narrative benefits beyond the increases/decreases in strain and wound thresholds, and the flipping of dark side or light side points.

Of course you can ignore it. Once again, that is not the issue.

Context is the issue, which is why I made it a corporate compound and not an Imperial one.

The workman wasn't a superior foe, he's just a guy.

The computer isnt a system of secret imperial bases, its the company mainframe, so the virus scrambles everything from lost valley info to health insurance plans.

The lost valley isn't an Alliance thing, its the players trying to track down a holocron or crystals like you see in the published adventures.

Yeah the company might not be the nicest of organizations, but its not the empire. And while you might need the holocron to help the alliance later or something, right here and now your kinda being a jerk to get it.

The rules specifically state that characters can do things that might seem objectively immoral, such as theft,but avoid being Conflicted over it because of the goal. If stealing a workman's tools helps them save lives then I would not award Conflict. I might do so if their plans came to naught, but that would be contentious and only in a more gritty game. It is very much the end justifies the means; in World War 2 if you were hiding some Jews when the Nazi's came knocking woud you feel Conflicted lying about who was currently in your property? I know I wouldn't!

So even if this perceived issue is an actual problem, how does it negatively impact the game?

The biggest negative impact on the game I see is flavor: Primarily the use of dark side points/pips (DSP) on force rolls.

As I understand it, converting a DSP to fuel a force power (or anything else) is a mechanical representation of "drawing on the dark side of the force." The 1d10 default for the the roll means without conflict a player is picking up 5.5 morality/game, so to break even , a player can, over average, flip 5.5 DSP to LSP per session.

That seems like a lot. I could be wrong, my frame of reference may be off due to my previous experience running non-force centric campaigns.

An additional flavor issue I've pointed out before is that it allows the *passive* accumulation of morality, which represents becoming a light-side paragon. I think that title/status should require the player to be more pro-active.

Using DSP however is only one aspect of conflict. Your scenario above assumes the player is doing nothing else to gain conflict that session other than flipping DSPs. In general, yes a player has a threshold of 5.5 conflict to earn per session, I've even told my player as such that he shouldn't be that concerned about gaining conflict because of that threshold. However, that's just gaming the system and there is still the chance of rolling a 1 on the d10.

I agree also that passive morality gain to paragon status doesn't feel right but you have to look at it in context of a game session. But I have not seen, heard, ran, or played in a game session were there wasn't a single chance to gain conflict.

Context is the issue, which is why I made it a corporate compound and not an Imperial one.

The workman wasn't a superior foe, he's just a guy.

The computer isnt a system of secret imperial bases, its the company mainframe, so the virus scrambles everything from lost valley info to health insurance plans.

The lost valley isn't an Alliance thing, its the players trying to track down a holocron or crystals like you see in the published adventures.

Yeah the company might not be the nicest of organizations, but its not the empire. And while you might need the holocron to help the alliance later or something, right here and now your kinda being a jerk to get it.

The rules specifically state that characters can do things that might seem objectively immoral, such as theft,but avoid being Conflicted over it because of the goal. If stealing a workman's tools helps them save lives then I would not award Conflict. I might do so if their plans came to naught, but that would be contentious and only in a more gritty game. It is very much the end justifies the means; in World War 2 if you were hiding some Jews when the Nazi's came knocking woud you feel Conflicted lying about who was currently in your property? I know I wouldn't!

The rule specifically states that intent should limit the amount of conflict earned, not that it should negate it. Thus theft will earn conflict because it is theft, but the amount of conflict gained is based on the character's intent.