Thank you for your reply, and I do agree completely. I'm one of those people who know the movies well, have seen some CW and Rebels and that's it! So separating my world view from the Fictional world of SW is a little more tricky. I sometimes just have no idea what Legends has established. I also GM for some people who have a much deeper knowledge of Legends, that's where this forum has been great in filling my knowledge gaps.

Thank you for your reply, and I do agree completely. I'm one of those people who know the movies well, have seen some CW and Rebels and that's it! So separating my world view from the Fictional world of SW is a little more tricky. I sometimes just have no idea what Legends has established. I also GM for some people who have a much deeper knowledge of Legends, that's where this forum has been great in filling my knowledge gaps.

If you know the movies, that's basically what you need. Legends has gotten wiped, so even if there is something in that material that might contradict your assignation of Conflict, you can *very* easily say that doesn't count.

It's your game, so your ruling are paramount. You're players will learn how you run, you'll learn how they play, and you'll reach a consensus.

The exact values of Conflict is very "under the hood" anyway, stuff you wouldn't really see in that material anyway.

Putting all rules to one side for a second and just looking at what we know abut the movies, I'd say the Force is all about emotion. Below is purely my take in it and I'm in no way saying thus is how it has to be or else

Did Anakin "gain Darkside points" for slaughtering all those Tuskens? Nah. Did he gain them for acting with Anger and unbridled Hatred? Hell yeah.

Did Luke gain conflict for killing all those guys on Jabba's barge. Nope. Did he gain them for acting with anger? No because as could be seem before he flipped out and killed people he was acting calm and cool. He knew what needed to be done.

If he'd have said "**** you Jabba! I won't let you kill my friends!" He would have acted with anger toward the slug, and fear of losing his mates.

Would a sniper gain Conflict? Nah. As long as he's not doing it out of fear, anger or hatred

Just my thoughts.

Putting all rules to one side for a second and just looking at what we know abut the movies, I'd say the Force is all about emotion. Below is purely my take in it and I'm in no way saying thus is how it has to be or else

Did Anakin "gain Darkside points" for slaughtering all those Tuskens? Nah. Did he gain them for acting with Anger and unbridled Hatred? Hell yeah.

Did Luke gain conflict for killing all those guys on Jabba's barge. Nope. Did he gain them for acting with anger? No because as could be seem before he flipped out and killed people he was acting calm and cool. He knew what needed to be done.

If he'd have said "**** you Jabba! I won't let you kill my friends!" He would have acted with anger toward the slug, and fear of losing his mates.

Would a sniper gain Conflict? Nah. As long as he's not doing it out of fear, anger or hatred

Just my thoughts.

It really just about emotion. Emotion plays into it, and can affect your actions and even lead to Dark Side actions, but it isn't the only factor. If it was, then you could say Palpatine has no business being a Dark Sider because he doesn't really do anything out of fear, anger, or hatred, and in fact, he's downright happy and confident in most everything he does.

So intention and emotion are big factors, but, say, destroying a tribe of Tusken Raiders, is still an act of mass murder, and it's still a huge push towards the Dark Side.

I did mention it was just my thoughts on the matter.

You're saying murder leads to the Darkside but there isn't much evidence of that in the movies. The films are more happy to say that strong emotions lead to the Darkside. It's only the "extra stuff" (cartoons, previous rpgs and EU) that changed that. If you were a murderer then you were a bay guy like in most movies, but you were a Darksider because you were emotional.

The Emperor had a Lust for power and got greedy and over confident. All emotion in my book.

You're saying murder leads to the Darkside but there isn't much evidence of that in the movies. The films are more happy to say that strong emotions lead to the Darkside. It's only the "extra stuff" (cartoons, previous rpgs and EU) that changed that. If you were a murderer then you were a bay guy like in most movies, but you were a Darksider because you were emotional.

I mentioned before, it's not just murder or any act just by itself, intention and emotion does play into it as well, but it isn't just emotion. The reason Palpatine wanted Luke and young Anakin to feed into their emotions was two-fold, so they would dig into a darker part of the force (and be more corrupted), and to further warp and cloud their minds in making choices.

The Morality of the target doesn't matter. Killing a helpless Sith is just as Dark an act as killing a helpless common citizen. I rewatched Ep. 3 last night (it's just as bad as you remember it being), and the scene where Anakin decapitates a helpless and disarmed (ha) Count Dooku surely gave him loads and loads of Conflict. In fact, your argument that Morality of the target affects Conflict of the act is basically the same one Palpatine uses to convince him to do it .

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.

Rolling the morality/conflict mechanics out across careers from all three core rulebooks seems a bit much and, to my mind, undermines the burden specific to having an affinity with the Force. It would also potentially shackle the actions of particular characters. Imagine Han Solo in the ORIGINAL original trilogy gunning Greedo down and then gaining conflict. I'd argue that in this example, conflict gain for Han would cheapen the moment and fly in the face of what his character is about.

One question. Many different answers, none of which are wrong. Now I'm really excited about my F&D core rulebook arriving next week.

But the comment I most agree with is: "if you have to ask then it would cause conflict"

As is proven by the varied answers to this very topic.

You'd say a sniper was evil if he/she was shooting at you; but you'd thank and praise him/her as a hero if someone had a gun to your head and got their brains blown out before they shot you. But the person with their gun to your head might be a frightened henchmen doing his evil overlords bidding or else his family would be killed. Does that person deserve to die?

Morality. Right and wrong. These are easy when sitting in a comfortable chair. But in the heat of battle it becomes much harder to determine.

People can be moral, but the thinking behind those morals can be influenced. Other people can be haunted by horrific actions they had no choice but to carry out. So the morality of the enemy shouldn't effect the morality of the Force user.

No pun intended, but The Force is a force of nature. About as moral as the elements. How you use it is what matters.

FIRE: can keep you, your friends and family warm. Can use it to cook a meal. Ward off dangerous wildlife. OR burn down a house to cheat insurance company, cover up or carry out a murder. Even torture.

WATER: essential to life. Makes gardens and crops grow. Can even be used to generate power. OR can drown someone or be used as torture.

I could go on but I think those two best sum up what I'm saying. It is the morality of the person using the Force that matters; how they use it determines the ethical nature of the individual.

Personally, if you're deciding someone can no longer live, I don't think that whether they're aware of it or not is the biggest factor in determining the morality of the act.

Personally, if you're deciding someone can no longer live, I don't think that whether they're aware of it or not is the biggest factor in determining the morality of the act.

True

Killing is killing whether the killed are aware of their imminent doom or not.

Which is murder?

Telling someone you're going to kill them before beating them to death with a brick?

OR sneaking up behind someone and beating them to death with a brick?

Of course, if the victim in question is running towards you with an axe and screaming how he'll cut your head off. You reply "I've got a brick and I'm not afraid to use it". Eyes wide, foaming at the mouth, he continues running towards you so you hit him square in the head with the brick. That is self-defence, with the possibility of involuntary manslaughter if he happens to die from blunt force trauma if either the hit or his sudden grounding is fatal.

I like this Morality mechanic.

I'm still in the just use a nonlethal weapon like the Model 77 Air Rifle and stun them into the ground.

No killing and its extremely effective for sneaking around.

I'm still in the just use a nonlethal weapon like the Model 77 Air Rifle and stun them into the ground.

No killing and its extremely effective for sneaking around.

Plus it's got a great pierce rating, customs don't look twice at you because it's considered a joke compared to a blaster or a lethal slug thrower. Finally, SmartTranqs are awesome.

I've found smart tranqs are of limited effectiveness given its an average resilence check. Which is good for taking down minions, but most rivals and above can make the roll and quite possibly remove more strain from advantages. I'm in the market for some custom rounds including Raquor venom, Dendriton toxin, acid rounds based off the dissuader pistol, taser rounds based off modern day shotgun rounds and tracker ammo.

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.

I am not going to argue against your points, they are all quite reasonable and true from the perspective you are using. However, the point I was making is that it is possible to have non-force users with Morality and it is entirely possible to have a party of force users without. In particular, should you be running a game primarily focused on Edge of the Empire it is absolutely legitimate for the GM to not include the Morality mechanic even if some of the members use F&D careers and more so if none of them do but potentially all of them pick up the force specializations from the other books.. Force Sensitive Exile and I forget the other one now.

Similarly, if a GM chooses to run a F&D game but all of the players opt to select careers and specializations from the other systems and never gain force sensitivity, but the GM would like the focus of the game to be on their morality of their choices and actions, it is absolutely legitimate for the Morality system to be put into use for this.

Does the Morality system work best with Force Sensitive characters, absolutely. Is it strictly tied to being force sensitive, not at all.

Similarly, if a GM chooses to run a F&D game but all of the players opt to select careers and specializations from the other systems and never gain force sensitivity, but the GM would like the focus of the game to be on their morality of their choices and actions, it is absolutely legitimate for the Morality system to be put into use for this.

I don't know if you can rightly call it a Force and Destiny game if nobody is Force-sensitive... That just becomes an EotE or AoR game with strong moral themes. And in that case, those PCs should probably also be using Obligation/Duty (in addition to Morality).