I think scale matters as well. If you press a button and thousands of people die, can you even process that? Is the death star explosion something Luke is even capable of dealing with? Can you even emphasise with tens of thousands you barely new beyond the bare minimum? Those are some questions I don't think any game system can really answer, nor would I feel it fair to rule on them at all one way or the other.

Now, assassination, that's something much more personal. If you do it properly, you are going to study your target for a time, get to know their routine, their habits and develope some sort of rapport. Unless you have a complete disconnect for the task that then follows, it definitely is going to affect you. For quick, in combat snap shots, well, maybe, eventually. A lot of things factor in: Can you see their faces when they go down? Can you hear them screaming? Or is it just another monster in white armour? How do you see your enemy? Are your past experiences such that you demonise them, which makes things easier, or have you seen their human side and possibly emphasise them?

A lot of things factor into this scenario. So many, I really have to say: Handle it on a case by case basis for each character.

I think it was Marilyn Manson who was the first to say, "the death of one is a tragedy / the death of millions is just a statistic" I think conflict should be handed out for the example of blowing up the Death Star - not to try and drag the character into the Dark Side, but to represent the ordeal of what they went through and the imprint such an act would leave on their psyche, despite everyone's back-at-the-base post-rationalisations. If we don't want to touch upon that with the Morality/Conflict mechanics then perhaps it would be better to treat it as AoR territory.

That was Joseph Stalin, actually...

I would give the Sniper, and Luke, Conflict.

An outright assassination is murder. Doesn't matter if it's Tarkin, the Emperor, Mon Mothma, Jar-Jar, or a child. It's murder. 10 points. More for the child.

A tactical sniper-shot, where you're taking out a sentry so an Alliance strike team can infiltrate an Imperial base and blow it up is worth Conflict. You are taking a life suddenly, unexpectedly, denying the target any chance of option or action. But; it's part of a war; more specifically part of a tactical engagement. Arguably Murder, but I'd give it 5 points. Maybe 3. It's the same as if you jumped out of the shadows and lightsabered a stormtrooper sentry. You initiated the combat by being the aggressor. That's Conflict.

If the sniper-shot is for defensive measures; taking out an At-St driver during a battle; that would be no Conflict. Or maybe 1 point, max. It's part of combat, the battle has been joined.

Luke I probably would have also given Conflict for, at least a little for the monumental weight of killing over a million people all at once. But it wouldn't be much, because they are all Imperial Soldiers. They all are part of the Imperial War Machine, and the Force may not care about them "just following orders". It was still a massive loss of life, but the Alliance was under attack. On the defensive. Everyone on the battle station was in part responsible for the murder of an entire planet, filled with billions of lifeforms. The Death Star then moved on to try and kill another planet; Yavin IV. They were aggressivly moving the Death Star into position to blow up that planet. That makes the Death Star crew the aggressors, Luke the reactor, and thus his actions are a bit more justified in the morality of the Force.

Basically, when assigning Conflict look at intent and at what point there are no other options available. Luke had two choices at that point in the trench; kill the Death Star or die and have it blow up people and a cause he cared about. The Sniper has a lot more choices, including not taking the shot, until the outside circumstances start limiting his options. Unless the target is about to do something that's going to kill people right then and there, the Sniper's action is going to earn a chunk of Conflict.

That was Joseph Stalin, actually...

Are you sure it wasn't Marilyn Manson dressed up as Joseph Stalin?

I more or less agree, but I think conflict can be delayed for dramatic reasons and character development. Not every act is something you immediately realise and your own mental state at the time plays a large roll in if you even register it right at that moment, or later, when you've flushed your adrenaline out of your system and it suddenly hits you when you're alone and away from the hubub of victory celebrations.

Luke didn't earn conflict from blowing up the first Death Star, because it was attacking a planet at the time. The giant space battle was purely self defense. Working on a Space Station you know annihilates entire planets pretty much makes everyone on board who know exactly what the Station is guilty of mass murder. He did how ever earn conflict by not trying to find a peaceful resolution to the situation before using lethal force. I'm pretty sure he rolled higher then a 1 on the d10 tho.

Force Sensitive Sniper meet Model 77 Air Rifle its a non lethal tranq rifle that is ideal for not picking up conflict while shooting first. Its also by far one of the best sniper rifles in the game right now Especially for hunting Force Users.

I think it was Marilyn Manson who was the first to say, "the death of one is a tragedy / the death of millions is just a statistic" I think conflict should be handed out for the example of blowing up the Death Star - not to try and drag the character into the Dark Side, but to represent the ordeal of what they went through and the imprint such an act would leave on their psyche, despite everyone's back-at-the-base post-rationalisations. If we don't want to touch upon that with the Morality/Conflict mechanics then perhaps it would be better to treat it as AoR territory.

I think it was an observation made a bit earlier than MM...

In any case Conflict is just that, conflicting moral choices: "Do I do or allow to be done morally bad things? Is the thing I am doing or allowing to be done a morally bad thing?" This is what I believe the Conflict mechanic is meant to represent and the Morality mechanic is meant to represent the accumulation of past choices. So it's the need to ask the question that determines if it's should add to Conflict because all choices that lead to death or suffering cause moral conflict, some just add more.

So how I run it is all encounters that lead to death add at least 1 Conflict Point, if the death could have been reasonably avoided without further endangering the party at that time or later then I add more Conflict Points. For other situations I use the table in F&D for a guide.

I would recommend reading Kanobi it actually deals with the issue well along with some other things like how to play a Jedi in hiding.

That was Joseph Stalin, actually...

Are you sure it wasn't Marilyn Manson dressed up as Joseph Stalin?

...only if Manson could travel through time.

...which isn't a "Yes, I'm sure".

And yeah, Kenobi is a very good book that shows how to play a Jedi in Hiding, and watching Obi-Wan deal with Morality and Conflict.

I think Darth GM has the right of this. If you want to up the conflict, let him fire the shot and have the Trooper take off his helmet just in time to die... and let the player have a face to go with the nightmare dreams he will have from time to time. Of course, if someone is going this route, print off some faces and put a crosshair on them so that the player gets to see it as well. There is a reason that people have flashbacks after killing others in a war. There are moments that are personal and disturbing that will haunt you forever.

That was Joseph Stalin, actually...

Are you sure it wasn't Marilyn Manson dressed up as Joseph Stalin?

He's been known to do that.

Great points, everyone. I like these threads and this forum has some sharp minds. I enjoy that there's no one way to view it. Some may see that as a weakness in the Morality system, but I view it as a strength. I doubt it's easy to create a mechanic of moral codes for the Force and keep it fluid enough for characters to retain freedom, without massive/arbitrary penalties for their actions.

Great points, everyone. I like these threads and this forum has some sharp minds. I enjoy that there's no one way to view it. Some may see that as a weakness in the Morality system, but I view it as a strength. I doubt it's easy to create a mechanic of moral codes for the Force and keep it fluid enough for characters to retain freedom, without massive/arbitrary penalties for their actions.

Absolutely; as long as what you're doing works for your group, you're doing it right.

I'd argue that this is one of the reasons I don't like the Clone Wars. It took away the Jedi's need to value life when they could carve through whole armies of unthinking machines, but the feelings of the people who felt that the Separatist cause was just, and not only the rich people at the top, who were protecting their bottom line, is never seen, nor do the Jedi have to regret the war. In the old days, when clones fought other clones, there was more of a price they paid, and the Jedi could be more seen as monsters, which the people who saw them then more easily forgot about, when the Purge happened. Thanks ClonWars movies

This is... almost certainly giving Lucas too much credit. But if you want to look at the Droids thing and the Clone Wars? Exactly.

By fighting against Droids, and not needing to worry about what they did? The Jedi don't lose their morals. So when Order 66 goes down? Well, they haven't overcome their scruples like if they were against living sorts. I'd even point to the Umbar episode of the Clone Wars as further proof of that, it was particularly hard on both Jedi AND Clones mentally!

I still don't have my copy of FaD, so I'm putting this as a question due to no reference material.

How much remorse would the shooter feel? A cold killer or Dark sider feels none, therefore gains large amounts of Conflict. Meanwhile the soldier doing it out of necessity (Luke & Death Star) feels a large amount of sadness for the innocent lives lost, therefore gains less conflict.

It seems that the Players portrayal of the inner feelings of their PC could weigh heavily on the GM's decision to hand out conflict. The PC's morality choices are seemingly a big part of this too, which side of their Morality is leading them to sniper the target?

I still don't have my copy of FaD, so I'm putting this as a question due to no reference material.

How much remorse would the shooter feel? A cold killer or Dark sider feels none, therefore gains large amounts of Conflict. Meanwhile the soldier doing it out of necessity (Luke & Death Star) feels a large amount of sadness for the innocent lives lost, therefore gains less conflict.

It seems that the Players portrayal of the inner feelings of their PC could weigh heavily on the GM's decision to hand out conflict. The PC's morality choices are seemingly a big part of this too, which side of their Morality is leading them to sniper the target?

Doesn't matter how much remorse the acting character feels. Their own code, beliefs, or conscience isn't the deciding factor. For this, it's the Force. The Force is the arbiter as to how much an action is worth in Conflict. It's the judge. The referee. The Ref doesn't care the reason why the Force Sensitive murdered someone, or stole for the Force User's sole benefit, or tortured the evil Imperial to the edge of death to get information, or shouted and intimidated a librarian to give the Force-User access to a restricted area of the library. The penalty would, and should, be the same.

Circumstances could affect the Conflict cost (responding to aggression, no other options, crimes done to help the helpless), but not the conscience of the acting character.

Remorse is a reaction to the conflict generated. It isn't the conflict itself. Same with the cold-hearted killer. Still has the same conflict, but the reaction is different. I think this is the largest distinction in using Morality as a mechanic (which has actually been good as I look more and more at it). Players seem to easily confuse the reaction to the mechanic as the mechanic itself.

Remorse is a reaction to the conflict generated. It isn't the conflict itself. Same with the cold-hearted killer. Still has the same conflict, but the reaction is different. I think this is the largest distinction in using Morality as a mechanic (which has actually been good as I look more and more at it). Players seem to easily confuse the reaction to the mechanic as the mechanic itself.

Yes. Conflict isn't Morality it's how you determine the PC's Morality Rating . This is why I give out Conflict whenever the question comes up. Not necessarily a lot, maybe only a point or two, but I ask the Player to justify their actions based of their point of view, the harder it is to justify the more Conflict.

I more or less agree, but I think conflict can be delayed for dramatic reasons and character development. Not every act is something you immediately realise and your own mental state at the time plays a large roll in if you even register it right at that moment, or later, when you've flushed your adrenaline out of your system and it suddenly hits you when you're alone and away from the hubub of victory celebrations.

Last night my party took a turn to darkness for a brief moment as they were sick of these pirates that wouldn't stop pursuing them. The last time they were captured they were treated pretty brutally. The face of the party decided to pay back the favor.

They had captured 4 of the pirates. After threats had failed, the bounty hunter blasted the one who was talking back the most right in front of his friends. The three that were left were told only 1 of them would be able to "join" the crew, the rest would join the first. The pirates were able to slip out of their bindings before the party returned and they leapt up to attack their captors. 1 was stunned and the other killed. The last one standing in a panic dropped down to his knees and started strangling the one who got stunned killing him.

Obviously the whole situation was throwing conflict at the party members, but the face in particular gained conflict when he saw the last pirate strangle his friend all because of the face telling them that only 1 would make it.

Delaying conflict can be a great dramatic tool in session!

My Rule of Thumb on Conflict/Morality issues in F&D is that if you have to ask then there is some Conflict. Remember it's not the Conflict itself that is the problem but the PC's Morality rating, Conflict is inevitable when in a war so it is up to the PC to balance his deeds to avoid falling to the Dark Side.

I absolutely agree. These kinds of discussions came up a lot on the Saga Edition boards, because people were always trying to justify their actions based on circumstances and the greater good. I think the trouble a lot of people have is trying to equate it to their own morals, when their personal moral foundation is different from that of the Force.

Let's back up. There are two primary schools of thought in ethics. One is Deontological theory, or, "the ends NEVER justify the means." The extreme form of this is where Lawful Stupid paladins come from in D&D. Basically, there are rules one must live by, and those rules must be followed regardless of consequences. The common critical example of this is, "Do you have Jews hiding in your barn?" "Well, Gestapo Officer, I hate for them to die. But, lying is wrong, therefore I must tell you that I do have Jews hiding in my barn."

The other is Consequentialism, which basically boils down to "the ends ALWAYS justify the means." The rightness of any action is determined by the results. Assassinating a political figure to end a war saves lives, therefor it is good (assuming the war actually ends and does not intensify). This is where your classic megalomaniacs come from. "Of course we did torturous experiments on a thousand children! TEN thousand children will be spared of the plague because of it! It's for the GREATER GOOD!"

So, that's just a nutshell. Obviously every philosopher out there has his own variation, and most of them fall somewhere in between. I think it's safe to say, that when asked if morality is based on rules or results, most of us would say that both are important, but we'd give weight to one or the other. I would say that consequences are most important, but there are lines that should not be crossed. Another might say that the rules are most important, but must be broken to save lives. Philosophy is a mess, really.

Okay, to the point. I would say that the Force is very strongly Deontological, or non-consequentialist. The rules are fuzzy, so you're not going to rat out your barn full of Wookiees to the Imperial Officer, but murdering someone for long term "greater good" purposes is certainly Dark. The consequences don't change this, but circumstances may. Taking the example of Luke blowing up the Death Star: not only was this in a war, it was in the middle of a battle , and what he blew up was a weapon , about to destroy a moon with thousands of people on it. It can easily be said that the Death Star was the aggressor, and he was acting to defend people. Conflict? Sure, probably a bit. That stuff is going to come up in wartime.

Now then, realize that the Force is not the only moral measure in the Galaxy. It isn't God, it's not judging you, it isn't sentient (well... for our purposes. I'm gonna leave the Living Force aspect out of this). A lot of good people, even Jedi, would struggle with how the Force works vs their own morality. Let's bring in Aang from Avatar: the Last Airbender as an example. As the series neared its climax, everyone told Aang that he would probably need to kill the Firelord to stop him. As a pretty clear Light Side Paragon, Aang had a huge problem with this. He was able to win the day without killing, but what if he couldn't? If it were me, I would say it's wrong to put your own moral standing above the lives of thousands of innocents. Kill that sucka! This, of course, is why I would probably fall to the Dark Side pretty quick if given the Force. Not because I would use my powers for evil (well, sometimes), but because I'm a Greater Good sort of guy. This is why not every Dark Side character should be a Sith Lord. I imagine a lot of Dark Jedi retire to distant worlds to dwell alone with their Darkness. Anger and hate consume them, but that doesn't have to mean they seek power and domination. If they isolate themselves, they can live out their days in misery, without hurting anyone. Probably not too hospitable to visitors, though...

So our Force-sensitive sniper? He's gonna have issues. His conflict gain will be mitigated depending on his targets, but he's still a pretty dedicated killing machine. He will be at serious risk of falling to the Dark Side, which is part of what makes him an interesting character. I think of the Operative in Serenity, when Mal asks him, " So me and mine gotta lay down and die so you can live in your better world?"

" I'm not going to live there... There's no place for me there, any more than there is for you. Malcolm, I'm a monster . What I do is evil . I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

Last night my party took a turn to darkness for a brief moment as they were sick of these pirates that wouldn't stop pursuing them. The last time they were captured they were treated pretty brutally. The face of the party decided to pay back the favor.

They had captured 4 of the pirates. After threats had failed, the bounty hunter blasted the one who was talking back the most right in front of his friends. The three that were left were told only 1 of them would be able to "join" the crew, the rest would join the first. The pirates were able to slip out of their bindings before the party returned and they leapt up to attack their captors. 1 was stunned and the other killed. The last one standing in a panic dropped down to his knees and started strangling the one who got stunned killing him.

Obviously the whole situation was throwing conflict at the party members, but the face in particular gained conflict when he saw the last pirate strangle his friend all because of the face telling them that only 1 would make it.

Delaying conflict can be a great dramatic tool in session!

That right there? That is hardcore.

Based on the discussions I've read in these forums, and what we know about Star Wars morality, I think it's important to look at a few factors when you're assigning conflict. The table in the book that lists "common transgressions" (I think it's the one referenced about on F&D 324) mentions the that conflict generated can be reduced (and, IMO, reduced to 0, but it seems others interpret that it can't be reduced to below 1 ) based on situation. I think other factors, specifically the emotional state of the Jedi at the time of the action and attempts to circumvent the need for the action, need to be considered. Additionally, all these factors need to be considered simultaneously , and not independently of each other.

And yeah, it's complicated, but I think you need it to make the system work.

So for the "Jedi Sniper" example, I think that sniping should generate some conflict, based on the following thought process:

• Sniping is a 'pre-emptive' measure. The target isn't a direct and immediate threat to the sniper, regardless of the the fact that the target hasn't had the opportunity to threaten the sniper.
• If you're sniping, then you're not giving the target the opportunity to rethink their actions, flee, or otherwise avoid the situation where they're getting killed. This is pretty merciless, and compassion is an important part of the Jedi code.
• Snipers aim to be calm, but I think a better term is actually 'dispassionate', and, again, compassion is important. The importance of 'calmness' and 'dispassion' for Jedi is tricky, and really a two-edged sword; being dispassionate in the face of a threat is important as to not act out of fear, but dispassion in the face of ending a life is a problem.
• There's almost always options to sniping, and sniping is almost always an option of expediency (e.g. it's way easier to take out this sentry than sneak past him). The options may really, really suck, but there are still options.

I see this as a 'typical' sniping situation, with the target being an unaware Imperial soldier that is not posing a direct threat to the Jedi or anyone else.

Is target was someone the Jedi despises? More conflict. It's hard to say you're taking this action for the greater good.

Is the target about to kill a helpless anything ? Less conflict. Possibly zero conflict if the target is the clear antagonist in the conflict.

Did the Jedi warn the target in advance that staying and performing the guard's duties may result in his bodily harm? Less conflict, since the target had a chance to leave. It doesn't matter if this previous warning is likely to screw up the Jedi's shot later, it's still an option.

Even if the Jedi is assassinating a warlord gearing up to kill a lot of people, I think you need ask why the Jedi's do it? Is it because killing is wrong (irony!) or because the Jedi has loved ones that might be harmed by the conflict.

The point here isn't that Jedi should behave foolishly or *always* take the course of greatest resistance. Instead, before resorting to any violence, the Jedi should explore *all* possible avenues to avoid injury or death. Similar lines of thought can (and IMO should) be extended for other 'grey' areas e.g. theft and dishonesty.

I think I have to agree with "if Luke gets conflict for the Death Star it's little" because it was an act of self defense and defending others (a whole planet of creatures).

And I think these are the scenarios I've seen:

1. Is the target shooting so it's self-defense/defense of others

2. Is the person sitting on the john or just walking - not currently presenting a threat

a. normal undeserving dude

b. evilist of vile villains who kills puppys for fun

I would say there's no different in conflict between 2a vs 2b. As per the conflict chart:

Just reading pg.324 in F&D.

"10+ (conflict) - Murder: The PCs murder a character. In this case, murder is killing someone who is helpless or no threat to the PCs."

Whether it's for the greater good doesn't change "someone who is ... no threat to the PCs" in the moment the act occurs.

I don't think it would be any different if they shot the person after they surrendered, just because they're a horrible person.

Edit: Darn wish I'd read LethalDose's post before mine... nice points.

I was re-reading these responses, and I think these two posts raise interesting points

What if some dumb farmboy drops a torpedo down a space station's exhaust port and kills everyone on board? Again, so long as it's all conducted jus in bello , no Conflict per the ancient Jedi scholar, Toma Aqui-Nas.

I don't think Luke would earn conflict in this case. Or if he did, not much. However, I don't think I agree with the justification provided in Lorne's post. The phrase jus in bello , as I understand it, refers to the expansion of legally acceptable behavior in times of war. This equates legal behavior with ethical behavior. I'm sure there's a clever-sounding latin phrase for this kind of logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Argumentum ad permissum ?

In this case, I wouldn't apply conflict because the Imperials were the aggressors in the situation, and directly threatening not only the rebels on the Yavin IV, but the entire moon . I think a small amount of conflict could be argued here, and justifiably so because Luke is killing tons of people, some of which probably weren't total Imperial D-bags. Also, Luke is defending his friends on that moon, which would definitely trigger one of the issues I listed above.

In light of the whole situation, I don't think I would award Luke any conflict due to the dramatic nature of the encounter, but thinking about it as I write this, I might... Other GMs definitely could award a small amount. I think knowing lukes Motivations/emotional strengths and weakness would also be important this situation.

I don't think there's one right answer. There doesn't need to be.

Pac_Man3D's response is great !

If said dumb farmboy was a PC in AoR, then he'd get a potato sack full of Duty and a chocolate medallion.

If he was a PC in F&D and I was GMing, then in the run-up to him firing the torpedo, we'd see that his thoughts are a mish-mash of desperation to get the job done, desperation to stay alive, fear for his surviving friends and the Alliance cause, rage over his dead friends and family, terror over the possibility of failure, terror over Vader and Black Squadron breathing down his neck, reassurance and confusion over Obi-Wan's voice (prompting reminiscences of what happened to him on the Death Star, and consequently rage and a desire for vengeance) - all of which makes good inner conflict and fertile ground for dark side whisperings. I might even ask for a fear check to face down these emotions, with assistance from Obi-Wan in the form of a bonus die.

With two important points worth mentioning.

First, I think a soldier's morality is different than a force-sensitive's/Jedi's morality. The former does what he needs to do, and has the 'luxury' of not being tuned to a cosmic energy field they can manipulate to gain super-human abilities. The latter has those abilities, and has to be more careful than the former, because that energy field can bite you in the @$$ if you get sloppy. This does mean that a soldier does have more latitude to take a life than a Jedi, but I don't think that the Jedi should be held responsible (and generate conflict) for every action taken by the soldier that would generate conflict if taken by the Jedi. This is touchy, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Second, I think using a fear check to proxy a character's feelings for the purpose of conflict generation is genius . If I'm ever lucky enough to start a F&D campaign, I'm gonna keep this in my pocket.

This discussion reminds me of this piece of wisdom from Wayne's World:

"Why is it, that when a man kills another man in the heat of battle it's called heroic; but when a man kills another man in the heat of passion it's called murder?

You see a man with a machine gun enter a shopping mall and open fire. Unarmed men, women and children run terrified to escape but some a hit. Screams of agony, blood pouring from wounds. You see an opportunity to end the suffering and you act. Unfortunately, in the punch up that follows you literally break his face and he dies.

Do you suffer conflict?

I would.

But not as much as I'd suffer if I did nothing.

If said dumb farmboy was a PC in AoR, then he'd get a potato sack full of Duty and a chocolate medallion.

If he was a PC in F&D and I was GMing, then in the run-up to him firing the torpedo, we'd see that his thoughts are a mish-mash of desperation to get the job done, desperation to stay alive, fear for his surviving friends and the Alliance cause, rage over his dead friends and family, terror over the possibility of failure, terror over Vader and Black Squadron breathing down his neck, reassurance and confusion over Obi-Wan's voice (prompting reminiscences of what happened to him on the Death Star, and consequently rage and a desire for vengeance) - all of which makes good inner conflict and fertile ground for dark side whisperings. I might even ask for a fear check to face down these emotions, with assistance from Obi-Wan in the form of a bonus die.

With two important points worth mentioning.

First, I think a soldier's morality is different than a force-sensitive's/Jedi's morality. The former does what he needs to do, and has the 'luxury' of not being tuned to a cosmic energy field they can manipulate to gain super-human abilities. The latter has those abilities, and has to be more careful than the former, because that energy field can bite you in the @$$ if you get sloppy. This does mean that a soldier does have more latitude to take a life than a Jedi, but I don't think that the Jedi should be held responsible (and generate conflict) for every action taken by the soldier that would generate conflict if taken by the Jedi. This is touchy, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Second, I think using a fear check to proxy a character's feelings for the purpose of conflict generation is genius . If I'm ever lucky enough to start a F&D campaign, I'm gonna keep this in my pocket.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Morality is not strictly limited to those with an attunement to the force. It's simply the mechanic they went with for the system as Morality has a greater meaning to force users given the whole lightside/darkside balancing act they go through. However, in a game mixing the systems you could very possibly have an entire party of non-force sensitives whom all have Morality scores and use the Morality mechanic or you could have an entire party of Force Sensitives, none of which have Morality.

Morality and conflict have nothing to do with do you use the force or not.

If said dumb farmboy was a PC in AoR, then he'd get a potato sack full of Duty and a chocolate medallion.

If he was a PC in F&D and I was GMing, then in the run-up to him firing the torpedo, we'd see that his thoughts are a mish-mash of desperation to get the job done, desperation to stay alive, fear for his surviving friends and the Alliance cause, rage over his dead friends and family, terror over the possibility of failure, terror over Vader and Black Squadron breathing down his neck, reassurance and confusion over Obi-Wan's voice (prompting reminiscences of what happened to him on the Death Star, and consequently rage and a desire for vengeance) - all of which makes good inner conflict and fertile ground for dark side whisperings. I might even ask for a fear check to face down these emotions, with assistance from Obi-Wan in the form of a bonus die.

With two important points worth mentioning.

First, I think a soldier's morality is different than a force-sensitive's/Jedi's morality. The former does what he needs to do, and has the 'luxury' of not being tuned to a cosmic energy field they can manipulate to gain super-human abilities. The latter has those abilities, and has to be more careful than the former, because that energy field can bite you in the @$$ if you get sloppy. This does mean that a soldier does have more latitude to take a life than a Jedi, but I don't think that the Jedi should be held responsible (and generate conflict) for every action taken by the soldier that would generate conflict if taken by the Jedi. This is touchy, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Second, I think using a fear check to proxy a character's feelings for the purpose of conflict generation is genius . If I'm ever lucky enough to start a F&D campaign, I'm gonna keep this in my pocket.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Morality is not strictly limited to those with an attunement to the force. It's simply the mechanic they went with for the system as Morality has a greater meaning to force users given the whole lightside/darkside balancing act they go through. However, in a game mixing the systems you could very possibly have an entire party of non-force sensitives whom all have Morality scores and use the Morality mechanic or you could have an entire party of Force Sensitives, none of which have Morality.

Morality and conflict have nothing to do with do you use the force or not.

I respect your opinion, but I starkly disagree on several points.

First, you really shouldn't be running a full force-user group without Conflict or Morality, now that the full system has been released. In addition to other mechanics, Conflict is tied to the use of the force-die (converting DSP to LSP) and Conflict has a direct effect on Morality. Removing the Conflict and Morality mechanics with no replacement really guts the system, and it's back to the vague hand-waving of "don't be darkside" we had in Aor and EotE

Run your table however you want, but I don't think it's remotely fair to make claims like this.

It's *just* this side of absurd.

Next, you can give non-force sensitives a morality score, but they won't benefit from it as much as a force-user, based on my reading of the rules, specifically p 53

"Characters who remain consistently loyal to their Morality can reap additional benefits. If a Force users's Morality score increases above 70, he becomes a true champion of of goodness and a paragon of the Force." [Emphasis mine]

Being a light-side paragon, and consequently receiving the benefits listed later in that passage, is dependent on force sensitivity . I think this makes perfect sense, as it takes the characters attunement to the Force to affect the destiny pool. It's one line in the text, but I've seen other posters interpret a lot less to mean a lot more . Based on the limited (basically non-existent) opportunities to change DSPs to LSPs, and the 1d10 roll at the end of most sessions, I think it's really unlikely the dark side rules would ever really come up, and if they did, it wouldn't do much.

Giving non-force sensitives Morality scores seems like a lot of needless record-keeping.

Regardless, the purpose of the post was to point out the relative frame for AoR (specifically, but for EotE as well) campaigns is pretty different than a F&D campaigns.

Finally, it's a game. In real life, yeah, morality probably shouldn't be this contextual, with different rules for different people, but real life doesn't need to numerical track Morality and Conflict.

tl;dr : Run your game however you want, but IMO the quoted response seriously over-reaches based on the RAW.

Thanks for answering my question, now for another!

Could it be that the Morality score of the Target (even if the target is not actually force sensitive) affects the Conflict gained by the Force Sensitive Sniper? I'm looking for ways to quantity the outcome in a way that can justify the conflict I give to my players. I want to avoid arguments like "but he only got 2 conflict last session while I got 5 for the same thing"

Eg:

Target is a Child (Morality 100)= 20 conflict

Target is a Pacifist focused on bringing peace to the Galaxy (Morality 75)= 15 conflict

Target is a business person (Morality 50)= 10 conflict

Target is a ruthless criminal who does whatever it takes Morality 25)= 5 conflict

Target is a Sith (Morality 0)= 0 conflict (or 1 if that's the minimum)

Edit: added morality scores for target

I'm looking for ways to quantity the outcome in a way that can justify the conflict I give to my players.

You're probably not going to like the my answer, but I think you need to hear it. You only need one rule:

The GM has the final say.

Period. End of story. All other rules fall before this one.

"The GM is the final arbiter of all rules discussions." (F&D core book, p 316 under Rules Adjudication )

Try to be fair, and try to be consistent, but assigning conflict for actions is extremely subjective and varies from situation to situation. If you assign different amounts of Conflict for similar actions, explain to your players *why* you chose those values. Reconsider if they raise good points.

But you don't need to provide any justification beyond "I'm the GM."