I don't think I'm over thinking it, as context is imperative, if not the question is isolated in a nonsensical vacuum and becomes meaningless. It would be silly to answer one way or another as the question is so obviously loaded, except maybe: It depends.

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

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.

I think you are oversimplifying the question. The system is pretty clear in the fact that these things depend on the situation. Was the PCs first action to resort to violence against the NPC or did he try to work something out peacefully first? Did the PC initiate the violence or did the NPC lash out when the PC attempted a non-violent resolution?

The scenario could be quite complex. If an NPC threatened a PC's family with greivous injury, death or destroying their property and livelihood and the PC immediately jumps to hunting down, attacking and killing the NPC then I most certainly would award conflict. On the other hand, if the PC finds the threatening NPC, attempts to work things out but the NPC refuses and attacks the PC and the PC defends themselves resulting in the death of the NPC, then no.. chances are I would not award them conflict. If the situation is somewhere in the middle then there's likely to be some conflict gain but less than in the first situation.

Putting your question in an exaggeratedly simple context and then not being willing to discuss the intricacies of that question and the situation and instead trying to goad people into a simple yes, no answer suggests you are more interested in an argument than a discussion. Especially when you've simplified the question in a way where, on the surface, it looks like the PC is in a no-win situation of gaining conflict regardless of his actions.

I also don't feel that the Morality system is really intended to be tied to the Force but more a generalized representation of which direction your moral compass tends to point. Yes, if you do a lot of bad things your morality will fall and you will turn to the dark side but if you are doing that many bad things you are, in effect, fueling negative emotions and your ties to the dark side. However, the Morality system can be used for non-force users. When viewed merely as an insight into the moral fiber of a character it makes sense to have the upward trend. The game is designed and built on the expectation that the players are the heroes and good guys, even if they have a shady past and questionable choices historically, it's still the general principle that they are trying to do the right thing. Similarly, the fact that your reasons matter fits into that as well. Sure, you might have stolen from that imperial outpost but you didn't want them to use those guns to slaughter innocent villagers.. so again, less conflict (though potentially still some depending on the GM) but your moral compass is still pointing more towards good than bad.

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

And yet no one could even answer the question.

I think we're done

I find in my 6-8 months using the conflict mechanic as a player, is that it's dependant on dm and player cooperation, it is pointless without one or the other. Though i find it's very easy for both parties to get what they want.

Personally, the best setting for any morality based setting is one that involves constant contact with he fringe. In my campaign despite being part of preditor squadron, basically a rebel military unit tasked with an ongoing mission to distrust the empire in any way possible, our journey took us through the jewel of yavin, raids on imperial convoys, brief stints as a double agent, two epic battles, the organisation or a pro imperial opera (seriously, Lando was an old contact of ours from even before this unit, and somehow we made it the best one ever under false identities! Xd) the third stealing of the jewel of yavin on na sheddar (done solo by my character to lure out my nemesis, a semi famous bounty hunter.) which was rapidly followed by repelling an imperial occupation in a plotline against a genius admiral that unfolded like a climatic plotline straight out of rogue squadron.

Needless to say, there were plenty of moments to excel and be challenged without going through those bloody stupid darkside Jedi plots I keep reading about. Which included theft, murder, deception and plenty of oppertunties to slip. So far I fall firmly in the middle, as his hearts in the right place but his methods definitely are questionable, which includes working directly with the underworld to further schemes to weaken the empire and bulk up the alliances efforts.

Best thing about it? I am the one with the sith artifact mentor and I am trying to gain power and influence in any way I can in a manner that is natural. I have ties with merc groups, a hero of the rebellion and after defeating the admiral in a desperate boarding action I had a entire hutt clan view the squad favourably, giving us their coin of favour as unspoken heroes. Thus my eventual dream of rebirthing a new order of sith in Tobins very gunslinging fashion is a realistic excectation in the distant future, after all for all his flaws he is geninuely dedicated to the alliance partly because he has everything to gain from its rise and the possibility to die if it falls.

Sure, there are Jedi here, a new character is a Jedi as is a npc that my character hates (twarted my procession of the jewel of yavin twice, and usually most people witty glow sticks have tried to kill him.) but the entire Jedi/sith debate takes a firm backseat against this titanic battle of good, evil with good and bad people fighting for both sides. That is how I think Star Wars should be.

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

And yet no one could even answer the question.

I think we're done

I'll bite...

Yes , as GM I would award 1-2 conflict points. Possibly more based on how the PLAYER played the PCs reaction to the scenario.

*grabs popcorn and eagerly awaits response*

Yes. I would reward conflict for attacking, and dependant on the npc I might have the family attacked anyway as a contingency plan, earning additional conflict for recklessness for not considering hat possibility, thus more or less directing the knife towards their own loved ones inadvertently.

I mean. I have played against an rear admiral rathbone who did who did exactly that, he was just about the only npc who we couldn't kill because we knew he had wired his own wife with a thermal charge that was enough to kill everyone in the same section of the bridge as he was in. That kind of threat makes an npc much more powerful and memorable then their stat lines would otherwise suggest.

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

And yet no one could even answer the question.

Because the question presented a situation without context, while Palpatine versus Luke at the end of RotJ is a specific situation and the culmination of three movies. I provided context and within that context, a GM can act. You do not really find it surprising that people find it hard to make rulings about moral choices based on your one-liner, do you?

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

And yet no one could even answer the question.

I think we're done

Just because you don't get the answers you want doesn't mean no one answered. No one answered as you wanted them to, a quite different matter.

If you're not happy with the response, reconsider the premisses for your (in this case quite loaded) question. Consider posing it in a meaningful and useful way that takes what you're discussing into account, in context, rather than an over simplified obviously loaded way where any response will be out of context and too easy to have a go at to continue this repetitive circle.

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.

Simple answer then. Yes.

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?

You mean like the Conflict Luke obviously gained for attacking the Emporer after being enticed to do so by telling him his friends will die? Seems very Canon to me ...

And yet no one could even answer the question.

I think we're done

Just because you don't get the answers you want doesn't mean no one answered. No one answered as you wanted them to, a quite different matter.

If you're not happy with the response, reconsider the premisses for your (in this case quite loaded) question. Consider posing it in a meaningful and useful way that takes what you're discussing into account, in context, rather than an over simplified obviously loaded way where any response will be out of context and too easy to have a go at to continue this repetitive circle.

I asked a yes or no question. That was all. According to the rules, such a character must receive Conflict. It's not a trick question at all.

I asked a yes or no question. That was all. According to the rules, such a character must receive Conflict. It's not a trick question at all.

No, by the rules the character may be assigned conflict by the GM. A conflict value which the GM may mitigate (either entirely or partially) based on the circumstances for the action. Again, your question fails to indicate did the PC resort to violence as a first solution or did he try diplomacy first? Did the NPC attack the PC when attempting to resolve the issue or did the PC simply seek the NPC out and attack them?

This is from the beta book so I can not be 100% certain it is unchanged but I am fairly confident:

Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded

Also from the same page on bestowing conflict:

Table 9–2: Common Conflict Point Penalties, above, for examples of Conflict awarded for common negative or evil actions. The GM can and should adjust the amount to account for unusual actions or situations.

And from the table 9-2 being referenced, the most likely valid conflict suggestion would be:

Coercion and Threatening with Violence: The PC threatens someone with violence or coerces the person to do his bidding against the person’s will.

- This nets 2 conflict by default, adjusted by GM interpretation of the player's intent and reasoning. So it could be from 0 to 2 in this case.

- Unless your question is expanded to include if the PC resorts to violence first or tries to talk the guy down or not, I will work with the belief that the PC is a good guy, doing this for good reasons and is likely to try convincing the NPC not to attack his family/friends before resorting to attacking the NPC. In which case this does not apply.

Unprovoked Violence or Assault: The PC assaults, beats, or otherwise attacks an NPC for no reason.

- This likely doesn't apply as the NPC has threatened the PCs family/friends and so there is a reason, but the validity of that reason needs to be judged by the GM so they might apply this.

Murder: The PCs murder a character (killing someone who is helpless or no threat to the PC).

- This also likely doesn't apply even in the case that the NPC does get killed. Except, again, your example is overly simplified and incomplete. IF the NPC attempts to surrender and drops their weapon but the PC still kills them then it certainly does. If a fight breaks out and the PC kills the NPC during the fight but the NPC is not helpless then it's not considered murder for the purpose of conflict.

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.

What part of it depends on the circumstances did you not understand?