But the system just doesn't make sense.

You are meant to be in conflict by undertaking a course of action. Except if that action has positive consequences you aren't. So if you rob from the rich to give to the poor your conscience, in game terms, will be crystal clear and you will only ever gain morality.

That makes no sense. You are meant to be in Conflict, you are a person acting in a period of turmoil. The mechanic woudl seem to imply that you have to make difficult choices, except it doesn't because if you choose to steal something you only get Conflict if you do something that isn't, by nature, conflicted. If you choose to steal from the poor, for instance, you earn Conflict. But all you've done is just...steal from the poor. Where is the conflict there? All that's happened is you've behaved like a tool.

It does seem as through they wanted something like Mass Effect's moral system, but the problem is that in video games being the bad guy just means being a **** while the majority of the gameplay favours being the good guy.

What should happen, if you are going to have a system of points for Conflict, is that any negative action should earn Conflict, no matter what the reasons are or the outcome. But that would make the game rather tedious because the focus won't be on the adventure or the characters it will be on the GM adjudicating the morality of every action they take. The only way Conflict can actually BE conflicting is when the character does something that is otherwise immoral because he thinks its going to achieve the greater good. But in the rulebook such actions expressly do not garner Conflict points.

Even so, if the system were to change the consequence of Conflict is random. So you are playing in a game where you will get points for how you behave buit it's out of your control what happens as a consequence: you might become a better person, or you might not.

I don't think this has been thought through very well.

Wouldn't stealing from the poor and acting like a tool be a generally jerky thing to do and kind of against the law and one of the things a Jedi were tasked to prevent (upholding the law and all that), and also something that an arrogant, power mad dark sider would do, taking something from somebody weaker then them just for their own interests?

What you described sounds like a table where the GM never takes in to account his players' desires, never communicates with them or asks them why they would do something, the players never communicate with their GM and tell him what they want to do in the game, or explain their own motives and reasonings, and the GM doesn't take the time to consider the circumstances or the story or the players' motives and is just routinely making judgments based on what he reads out of the book. That doesn't sound fun to me, and it flies in the face of everything the entire game line says: the GM is the final arbiter, yes, but he has the authority to suspend whatever rule he needs to to make the game fun for him and his players, and that he should be constantly discussing what his players want to do and work to facilitate that in a fun and adventurous way. That's how the game works.

So don't use them. Buh bye.

are you being deliberately obtuse? game mechanics should work. Morality is key to the experience of the lives of force users, but instead of accepting the system is not designed properly once again the FFGfanboys have a little sulk and cry like this. Good grief, how immature!

"All rules in any RPG are/should be guidelines" really applies here. The Morality/Conflict system does a great job at handling this very touchy topic, IMO. Yes, by the rules one could "sleep their way to paragon". However, it's suggested throughout the book that the struggle between light and dark is intrinsic to the theme of the game. This should (hopefully) lead GMs and players to create challenges to Morality, just as Obligation and Duty shouldn't just be background noise.

It comes down to what fits the agreed upon tone, session requirements and individual desires. If a PC's Morality comes into play, narratively, great. Use it and move on. If it doesn't, well, that's fine, too. You don't always need to fit Obligation or Duty into each session, but players can reap penalties/rewards, regardless. Morality should be no different. Heck, throw it out and use Obligation with the only penalty being flipping a Destiny token and losing Strain. That's still a pinch, but keeps the focus on Obligation.

One thing that makes me scratch my head is that people rail about sleeping your way to paragon, but I haven't seen complaints about how quickly you can fall to the dark side and gain its benefits.

In the end, LSP isn't a big deal. +2 Strain and an extra Destiny token? As a GM, that's not going to derail my galaxy, so let the players have it. Maintaining LSP will eventually come into play as these things have a way of smoothing themselves out.

Wouldn't stealing from the poor and acting like a tool be a generally jerky thing to do and kind of against the law and one of the things a Jedi were tasked to prevent (upholding the law and all that), and also something that an arrogant, power mad dark sider would do, taking something from somebody weaker then them just for their own interests?

What you described sounds like a table where the GM never takes in to account his players' desires, never communicates with them or asks them why they would do something, the players never communicate with their GM and tell him what they want to do in the game, or explain their own motives and reasonings, and the GM doesn't take the time to consider the circumstances or the story or the players' motives and is just routinely making judgments based on what he reads out of the book. That doesn't sound fun to me, and it flies in the face of everything the entire game line says: the GM is the final arbiter, yes, but he has the authority to suspend whatever rule he needs to to make the game fun for him and his players, and that he should be constantly discussing what his players want to do and work to facilitate that in a fun and adventurous way. That's how the game works.

Maybe he secretly works for EA and is upset he can't easily translate the system into a computerized format for "Star Wars: Not KoToR III: The Search for More Money"

BTW, just the get season pass.

The DLC "More Hats" is lame, but "Shoes? I didn't even know we modeled feet under the robes" "Oh, yeah I guess we should let you play as a Jedi for at least one level," "Awkwardly sexy outfit bundled with a lame arena and even more hats" and "Shut up Nerd! Give us your Money and Shut up!," are still cheaper in the bundle and not totally garbage.

To be honest, if you experience whole sessions without conflict, getting a few points of Morality is the least of your problems. The main problem is that you are experiencing whole sessions without conflict.

To be honest, if you experience whole sessions without conflict, getting a few points of Morality is the least of your problems. The main problem is that you are experiencing whole sessions without conflict.

This would indicate it's time to poke your GM with something, because he's clearly asleep at the wheel.

Here's how I see it working:

1: No opportunities for Conflict appears during play. Therefore, no roll at the end of the session.

2: Opportunity for Conflict, but the character avoids it. He made a "morally good" choice and gets to roll at the end.

3: Opportunity for Conflict, character gets a few points. He rolls at the end of session.

But the system just doesn't make sense.

You are meant to be in conflict by undertaking a course of action. Except if that action has positive consequences you aren't. So if you rob from the rich to give to the poor your conscience, in game terms, will be crystal clear and you will only ever gain morality.

That makes no sense. You are meant to be in Conflict, you are a person acting in a period of turmoil. The mechanic woudl seem to imply that you have to make difficult choices, except it doesn't because if you choose to steal something you only get Conflict if you do something that isn't, by nature, conflicted. If you choose to steal from the poor, for instance, you earn Conflict. But all you've done is just...steal from the poor. Where is the conflict there? All that's happened is you've behaved like a tool.

It does seem as through they wanted something like Mass Effect's moral system, but the problem is that in video games being the bad guy just means being a **** while the majority of the gameplay favours being the good guy.

What should happen, if you are going to have a system of points for Conflict, is that any negative action should earn Conflict, no matter what the reasons are or the outcome. But that would make the game rather tedious because the focus won't be on the adventure or the characters it will be on the GM adjudicating the morality of every action they take. The only way Conflict can actually BE conflicting is when the character does something that is otherwise immoral because he thinks its going to achieve the greater good. But in the rulebook such actions expressly do not garner Conflict points.

Even so, if the system were to change the consequence of Conflict is random. So you are playing in a game where you will get points for how you behave buit it's out of your control what happens as a consequence: you might become a better person, or you might not.

I don't think this has been thought through very well.

This is one specific case of how to gain conflict, theft. There are several others. And in general, the whole point is that being a jerk will gain you conflict. Additionally, the rules as written do not state you gain no conflict if you are doing things for a good reason but that it /can/ mitigate the conflict gain. It also states that the GM assigns conflict and is the final arbiter of all conflict gains.

So, as written, the GM gives players conflict points for their actions guided by a table of some common values for some common actions. The GM may choose to increase or decrease this amount based on the specific reasoning for the action and the situation. This seems pretty reasonable, it is certainly somewhat upto the GM but it does mean that there is every likelihood that you would gain some conflict for robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Just less than you would if you were robbing from the rich just to buy yourself a new set of robes.. but it's in the hands of the GM to decide that. Similarly, the GM might rule there is no conflict gain when you raid an imperial convoy and take their shipment of weapons then give those weapons to the innocent villagers to defend themselves when the empire arrives planning to drive them out of their homes. And that would seem like a pretty reasonable choice. But the GM is not required to reduce the conflict to nothing just because you have good intentions.

Now, your statement that the amount of morality gain/loss is random. I can totally see your point there on that. I don't really think it makes the system broken or a failure but I can definitely see your point in saying that, ultimately, the amount your Morality improves isn't directly representative of the amount of good or bad you did, and that is a pretty fair assessment there.

But the system just doesn't make sense.

You are meant to be in conflict by undertaking a course of action. Except if that action has positive consequences you aren't. So if you rob from the rich to give to the poor your conscience, in game terms, will be crystal clear and you will only ever gain morality.

That makes no sense. You are meant to be in Conflict, you are a person acting in a period of turmoil. The mechanic woudl seem to imply that you have to make difficult choices, except it doesn't because if you choose to steal something you only get Conflict if you do something that isn't, by nature, conflicted. If you choose to steal from the poor, for instance, you earn Conflict. But all you've done is just...steal from the poor. Where is the conflict there? All that's happened is you've behaved like a tool.

It does seem as through they wanted something like Mass Effect's moral system, but the problem is that in video games being the bad guy just means being a **** while the majority of the gameplay favours being the good guy.

What should happen, if you are going to have a system of points for Conflict, is that any negative action should earn Conflict, no matter what the reasons are or the outcome. But that would make the game rather tedious because the focus won't be on the adventure or the characters it will be on the GM adjudicating the morality of every action they take. The only way Conflict can actually BE conflicting is when the character does something that is otherwise immoral because he thinks its going to achieve the greater good. But in the rulebook such actions expressly do not garner Conflict points.

Even so, if the system were to change the consequence of Conflict is random. So you are playing in a game where you will get points for how you behave buit it's out of your control what happens as a consequence: you might become a better person, or you might not.

I don't think this has been thought through very well.

The force does not care about your personal morality. or your justification. You may earn less conflict because you are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You are still stealing so you are still going to earn conflict. You don't get to lawyer your way out of getting conflict. Which is why it is GM discretion as to how much conflict you get for your actions.

But the system just doesn't make sense.

You are meant to be in conflict by undertaking a course of action. Except if that action has positive consequences you aren't. So if you rob from the rich to give to the poor your conscience, in game terms, will be crystal clear and you will only ever gain morality.

That makes no sense. You are meant to be in Conflict, you are a person acting in a period of turmoil. The mechanic woudl seem to imply that you have to make difficult choices, except it doesn't because if you choose to steal something you only get Conflict if you do something that isn't, by nature, conflicted. If you choose to steal from the poor, for instance, you earn Conflict. But all you've done is just...steal from the poor. Where is the conflict there? All that's happened is you've behaved like a tool.

It does seem as through they wanted something like Mass Effect's moral system, but the problem is that in video games being the bad guy just means being a **** while the majority of the gameplay favours being the good guy.

What should happen, if you are going to have a system of points for Conflict, is that any negative action should earn Conflict, no matter what the reasons are or the outcome. But that would make the game rather tedious because the focus won't be on the adventure or the characters it will be on the GM adjudicating the morality of every action they take. The only way Conflict can actually BE conflicting is when the character does something that is otherwise immoral because he thinks its going to achieve the greater good. But in the rulebook such actions expressly do not garner Conflict points.

Even so, if the system were to change the consequence of Conflict is random. So you are playing in a game where you will get points for how you behave buit it's out of your control what happens as a consequence: you might become a better person, or you might not.

I don't think this has been thought through very well.

This is one specific case of how to gain conflict, theft. There are several others. And in general, the whole point is that being a jerk will gain you conflict. Additionally, the rules as written do not state you gain no conflict if you are doing things for a good reason but that it /can/ mitigate the conflict gain. It also states that the GM assigns conflict and is the final arbiter of all conflict gains.

So, as written, the GM gives players conflict points for their actions guided by a table of some common values for some common actions. The GM may choose to increase or decrease this amount based on the specific reasoning for the action and the situation. This seems pretty reasonable, it is certainly somewhat upto the GM but it does mean that there is every likelihood that you would gain some conflict for robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Just less than you would if you were robbing from the rich just to buy yourself a new set of robes.. but it's in the hands of the GM to decide that. Similarly, the GM might rule there is no conflict gain when you raid an imperial convoy and take their shipment of weapons then give those weapons to the innocent villagers to defend themselves when the empire arrives planning to drive them out of their homes. And that would seem like a pretty reasonable choice. But the GM is not required to reduce the conflict to nothing just because you have good intentions.

Now, your statement that the amount of morality gain/loss is random. I can totally see your point there on that. I don't really think it makes the system broken or a failure but I can definitely see your point in saying that, ultimately, the amount your Morality improves isn't directly representative of the amount of good or bad you did, and that is a pretty fair assessment there.

Also the table is not the end all of what can give you conflict. it is a set of examples and amounts that they give as a guideline. I am sure we can all come up with additional items not listed that would give conflict. I would say pretty much any causing of harm would cause conflict unless it is in defense of your self or others.

And as to the gain loss of morality being random. That is intentional. It helps prevent gaming the system. It also provides some temptation...I can use these couple darkside points... I should be fine...Oh oops I only rolled a one and lost some morality...

Also the table is not the end all of what can give you conflict. it is a set of examples and amounts that they give as a guideline. I am sure we can all come up with additional items not listed that would give conflict. I would say pretty much any causing of harm would cause conflict unless it is in defense of your self or others.

And as to the gain loss of morality being random. That is intentional. It helps prevent gaming the system. It also provides some temptation...I can use these couple darkside points... I should be fine...Oh oops I only rolled a one and lost some morality...

The Game Master chapter of the core book brings out the randomization of the conflict rolls is intended to increase the drama of the situation, making it so that the player never knows for sure if taking the next bit of conflict will cause him to fall or not. You can take that explanation or leave it.

Ummm..did you roll a force die? You had an opportunity for Conflict. You don't use the Dark Side. You spend the session Tomb Raiding through ancient ruins looking for a way through the hyperspace barrier. Not exactly a big moral conflict but you'd gain Morality. Or you can force the issue and use the Dark Side to gain 1 Conflict. So you could routinely use the Dark Side at very little risk yet on average gain Morality.

The Game Master chapter of the core book brings out the randomization of the conflict rolls is intended to increase the drama of the situation, making it so that the player never knows for sure if taking the next bit of conflict will cause him to fall or not. You can take that explanation or leave it.

This is a fair enough explanation for me. I'm also not against the randomization. Just, I can see their point in disliking that aspect over all. I can understand wanting there to be a correlation between the amount of good done and the amount of morality gained. For me, the system is a neat narrative tool that has little impact on the game mechanics so I am perfectly fine with how it is. I think it works well for what it is intended to do. It's not really meant to be a heavily codified, strict system. It's supposed to be something you can flex a bit to your needs and just meant to help drive the story and put some more weight behind some of the dramatic choices characters have to make. I also don't think it's intended to be used to weigh the morality of every choice they make but a few key choices throughout the session.. unless they do something particularly warranting conflict.. such as needlessly assaulting or threatening NPCs, especially doing so regularly.

To Lethaldose : why my first post ? why explain the Morality mechanic all over again ?
I wanted to make sure everyone understood it right, I thought that Signoftheserpent might have a few bits wrong. I wanted to make sure.

For Signoftheserpent :

- about conflict not resetting after gain or loss of morality ?

I think Ghostofaman and Deadstop already answered your question... Conflict resets after the roll at the end of the session.

- about rolling for increase/decrease of morality when no Conflict was earned ?

Many replies from Ghostofaman , Jegergryte , Deadstop and Krieger22 ; GM can choose not to make the roll if no occasion for Conflict where encountered... you can roll for morality increase/decrease even if no conflict was earned, but the player MUST have encountered an event, a choice that could have resulted in gained conflict (but he choose the Light side option).

I'm seriously beginning to consider the OP to be a forum troll.... in his last post he brought something new because everything he complained about was answered and met correctly with rule support. Now in his latest post, he argues that Conflict doesn't represent the time you earn conflict... that doing evil deeds earns conflict where there is none.... that conflict should be awarded where there is conflict, ambiguous choice of some kind.

Here is my reply to this :

" I can feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate! " quote : Luke Skywalker from Return of the Jedi

The authors choose this word because it feels Star Warsy, because you can relate to this epic duel between good and evil, between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader... It is only a word to represent a game mechanic. Like many talents where the Name used didn't always feel right, you really had to look at the Talent description to understand how to play it. Same for Conflict, it is only a word to represent the mechanic of progressing towards the light or falling to darkness. Conflict means that your Morality is wavering, that it could tilt the balance towards either Light or Dark sides. Meaning that your Morality isn't rock solid, steadfast and unwavering, unchanging... that your actions can push the balance one way or the other... For the sake of easier bookkeeping, the authors decided to presume that the players would try to go Jedi / Light side and decided to just keep track of evil deeds.

You can still call it what you want : Conflict, Evil Deeds, Dark side lure, Mash Potatoes...

The way it works is explained clearly and does a good job ... a reasonably simple system to keep track of your Dark Side vs Light Side rating, with a way (Emotional Strength vs Emotional Weakness) to build encounters to challenge your players in their journey has Force Users.

But the system just doesn't make sense.

You are meant to be in conflict by undertaking a course of action. Except if that action has positive consequences you aren't. So if you rob from the rich to give to the poor your conscience, in game terms, will be crystal clear and you will only ever gain morality.

That makes no sense. You are meant to be in Conflict, you are a person acting in a period of turmoil. The mechanic woudl seem to imply that you have to make difficult choices, except it doesn't because if you choose to steal something you only get Conflict if you do something that isn't, by nature, conflicted. If you choose to steal from the poor, for instance, you earn Conflict. But all you've done is just...steal from the poor. Where is the conflict there? All that's happened is you've behaved like a tool.

It does seem as through they wanted something like Mass Effect's moral system, but the problem is that in video games being the bad guy just means being a **** while the majority of the gameplay favours being the good guy.

What should happen, if you are going to have a system of points for Conflict, is that any negative action should earn Conflict, no matter what the reasons are or the outcome. But that would make the game rather tedious because the focus won't be on the adventure or the characters it will be on the GM adjudicating the morality of every action they take. The only way Conflict can actually BE conflicting is when the character does something that is otherwise immoral because he thinks its going to achieve the greater good. But in the rulebook such actions expressly do not garner Conflict points.

Even so, if the system were to change the consequence of Conflict is random. So you are playing in a game where you will get points for how you behave buit it's out of your control what happens as a consequence: you might become a better person, or you might not.

I don't think this has been thought through very well.

The force does not care about your personal morality. or your justification. You may earn less conflict because you are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You are still stealing so you are still going to earn conflict. You don't get to lawyer your way out of getting conflict. Which is why it is GM discretion as to how much conflict you get for your actions.

Serpentman, read the below by Shikage about conflict gain (it's been pointed out a few times, but you seem to ignore it):

except that's not what the rules say. As I've explained.

You read the rules in one way, others in a different way. So far you've brought no good argument to the table for why yours is the correct one and everybody else is wrong, other than "I write so" ... which frankly is getting tiresome and doesn't make your interpretation more correct the second or third time you write it, it's becoming repetitive. So far it is painfully obvious that the rules can be read in different ways, which either can be seen as a problem or as an opportunity. I see this as an opportunity.

You may be correct in your reading of the rules, but just as likely you may be incorrect. It depends on how absolute one wants to be when reading the rules, and how absolute one believes the rules to be, or should be.

So far it seems you're mainly interested in criticising the mechanic, which frankly is quite useful and good because it points out weaknesses and/or potential weaknesses that others, fanboys (like me), may not have noticed without a thread like this. Still, some of your points have been met (not necessarily agreed upon as problems, but that your observations are correct in fact if not in consequence), others are disputed. I think so far you've been read and understood quite well, although it doesn't seem you read the replies and counter arguments, or you choose to ignore them. I don't really care which it is, but it's making this discussion going in circles and becoming very repetitive. Particularly with smug statements like the one above.

So now the entire system hinges on whether the GM is willing to accept that you acted for the greater good?

This is a hot mess.

It would have been much better just to have actions cost or gain (or neither) morality points. There's really no need for Conflict or for making a roll. If players gain a little Conflict then their morality is odds on going to increase, which makes no sense. Gain a few points for threatening someone and you are likely going to become a better person as a result.

So now the entire system hinges on whether the GM is willing to accept that you acted for the greater good?

This is a hot mess.

It would have been much better just to have actions cost or gain (or neither) morality points. There's really no need for Conflict or for making a roll. If players gain a little Conflict then their morality is odds on going to increase, which makes no sense. Gain a few points for threatening someone and you are likely going to become a better person as a result.

Issue with just increasing and decreasing Morality is the exact same thing though, it's the GM making the final call as to whether you really did a noble action or if you just did something for personal gain. The only difference is that by only calculating Conflict, the GM just has to deal with making final calls on half of those decisions, and it means the players can't try and quickly fix their negative actions with positive ones and try and game the system.

Look. The thread's been beaten into the ground. Everyone has pointed out what Morality sets out to do, and the both RAW and assumed RAI minutiae of the mechanic. And it's obvious, not only at this point, but from fairly early in the thread, that it you weren't really trying to figure the mechanic out and see if there's something you're missing, and that you're more of just trying arguing against the mechanic. You don't like it at all. You think the developers are bad for publishing a mechanic you technically can't get around without buying another book, and is, in your eyes, a poorly made mechanic in general. We get it.

If you want to houserule and do direct effects on Morality based on good and bad actions like a video game, go for it. It seems to be what you're after anyways, so it doesn't make sense to continue in a thread where you're not content with the answers given to you.

Have the courtesy not to tell me my thoughts please

1) So now the entire system hinges on whether the GM is willing to accept that you acted for the greater good?

2) This is a hot mess.

3) It would have been much better just to have actions cost or gain (or neither) morality points. There's really no need for Conflict or for making a roll. If players gain a little Conflict then their morality is odds on going to increase, which makes no sense. Gain a few points for threatening someone and you are likely going to become a better person as a result.

1) Any system depends a certain degree on the GM and how he or she chooses to implement and interpret the rules and player actions. That's a truism, hardly worthy of mentioning is it? And no, it doesn't just hinge on that, but that is certainly part of it. The rhetorical device you're employing is called something, I just can't recall, but basically it makes for poor discussion. You're taking things out of proportions basically. Not nice. Not playing fair.

2) Not any hotter than any other rpg that I've player.

3) That seems very deterministic and inflexible to me, also it would regularly have a much larger immediate effect on the characters morality and makes it easier for players to "game the system". Also I get the impression you equate conflict with dark side points of the old systems, which isn't the case. It's conflict. It's a numeric abstract to represent the internal conflict caused by certain actions, doing something bad doesn't necessarily make you evil.

The roll at the end of the session could be seen as how you end up rationalising your actions and how potentially (in the long run) it affects your morality. What you learned from it. There's definitely a roleplaying aspect in this that I'm sure isn't that popular among a some gamers. If a character continue to threaten and use such tactics more often because the first few times it had no effect or perhaps even positive effect on his/her morality, it's likely that this will increase the accumulation of conflict and then the morality starts to drop. The mechanic isn't there to be "gamed" or used as punishment, it's there as a roleplaying tool. This will result in some groups not using it, finding it lacking, finding it horrible and silly, whereas others will find it inspiring, fun and that it enhances the game. It's not a perfect device, certainly, but it requires trying out, more than a session or two, to see how it works, how it affects the group, how the group uses it. For some it's going to be horrible, just like Obligation and Duty doesn't work for some groups it works for others. For some it barely works, for some it works perfectly. Experience will necessarily vary.

Stop feeding the Troll !

It's obvious now.... he's just here to criticize and whine...

Nothing constructive will come out from answering him.

If your NPC threatened a PC's family and the PC knew that NPC could and would follow through, would you as the GM award Conflict in the event the PC was violent or evne killed that NPC?

That depends on the nature of the threat.

How the PC reacts to this and how it possibly relates to his emotional strength and weakness is part of the determination process I think. If the PC reacts by shooting, hunting down and beating up, igniting lightsaber and decapitating, basically if the PC reacts by attacking (pre-emptive defence if you will... a bucket load of bull in any intelligent and moral society, by any standard) yes I'd give the PC conflict. If the PC tries alternate means first, but ends up being forced into a violent confrontation I'd rule differently, perhaps not giving conflict if the PC is attacked, as it become self-defence, if the PC ends up being the attacker I'd give some, but perhaps less. Also if the PC must save his family because they were kidnapped first, there's less doling out of conflict, because they are definitely in danger. Still, wading in blasters and lightsabers drawn and flashing would qualify for wanton murder, regardless of the motivation. Still, in the case that this is a last and necessary resort and other options had been exhausted (unless you go full Yoda and expect the PC to sacrifice his fellow PCs to become a Jedi) I'd give less conflict, but it also depends on how the assault is executed. Going in with stun grenades, training saber, blasters set to stun and stuff like that, no, I'd probably not give much conflict if any. Going in full-auto on the heavy blaster rifle gunning down anything that moves, yeah, conflict.

Knowing that the NPC can carry out the threat doesn't mean the NPC will. The nature of a threat is just that, you know the NPC says he will, maybe you believe he can, maybe he will, but you don't know for certain. To then attack based on the PCs own semi-paranoid assumptions that the NPC most certainly will, is giving into fear and is therefore conflict worthy (even if there's not fear check), being violent could be conflict worthy too but perhaps not on top of giving into the fear, but murdering the NPC based on a threat, however likely or probable, is still conflict worthy - in my book, GMs will differ (it's vital that players and GMs are on the same page when it comes to this. Obviously.) If the PC tries other means first, negotiation, moving the family to a hideout or something else, there's an attempt by the PC(s) to solve this in a different way, which can force the GM/NPC to act, to do something or back down. Most likely he wouldn't back down, he'd attack.

Negotiation, charm, deception and even coercion can be used here to avoid conflict. Coercion may be hard, but I think it's doable, you don't have to threaten violence or death, but consequences, be vague, mystical and stern.

As a parent I have no doubt I would have no problem doing great harm or even ending the life of anyone that threatened or harmed or killed my child. That doesn't make my action any less terrible. We've been spoon fed that it all right to seek vengeance in the right circumstances and we will be absolved of all wrong doing by so much media be it movies, books, or what have you. Characters can garner conflict for their actions and such conflict can be mitigated or exacerbated by their intent or for the ultimate result. That is why the rules are guidelines. Each group will have a different concept of what is and is not acceptable.

I would love to play a dark character that is the one that will do the terrible things that others will not. Totally dark but fighting for the light. Willing to fall to dark side so that others do not have to. I am of the " He who fights monsters " trope while others may be of a different thought like " It's personal ".

I think you're overthinking the question. All I'm asking is whether you would award Conflict to a PC for behaving violently toward that NPC.

Let's remember that Anakin Skywalker fell to the Dark Side thinking he was acting for the greater good -- to save the life of his wife, and on a larger scale to keep order in the Galaxy.

Merely thinking that you have a good reason for your actions or are serving a greater cause should not protect you from Conflict or even from Morality loss.

Even "attack a guy who is threatening your family" is a slippery thing when it comes to the Dark Side. Vader used a threat against Leia, and Palpatine a threat against all Luke's friends, to try to goad Luke into anger in Return of the Jedi . To me, that's exactly the sort of thing where real temptation comes into play and those emotional strengths and weaknesses could shine in a game.

Avoiding Conflict from an action that's not even something you particularly want to do is easy. Avoiding Conflict when the thing you most want to do in the world is wipe the grin off that smug bastard's face with your lightsaber ... that's where a character's dedication is tested.