Normally a when a Dark Sider rolls Force Dice they have a choice of use DS pips and suffer conflict, or use LS pips and suffer strain. This makes redemption a very long hard road. How do you adjust this when you flip the conflict mechanic around with your house rules?

Killing the boss and goons, not so bad. Killing the witness, that there is a Highway to the Dark Side. I'd be very tempted in that situation to immediately change their Morality to 29, with no conflict roll required. They can start using DS pips straight away! But it sounds like a good story, the problem being you have half a good group and half bad.

You probably need to chat about it OOC with the whole group to see where they want to go with it:

Is this the story of fall and redemption.

Are the "good" guys just going to kill them to stop them, or walk away to seek help killing them?

Is everyone going to fall? Becoming a dark side campaign?

Aye - as I've said, we already had that conversation. All of them agreed to keep on going and see where this will lead us. We're a mature group of people. My players do not use the out of character knowledge even if that means they could die - so no feeling will be hurt if some dies. Granted it has derailed my campaign all right haha. But that's fine - it's even more interesting now :-)

I'm still a bit disappointed about the dark side cap. I always pictured it a a slow descent towards madness and decay - where evil starts to rot the foundation of the PC's morality. Like Vader, and the whole lot of other Sith lords who were slowly but surely pushed over the edge. Killing several people - even if it means 130 conflict points seems a bit ...superficial?

@richardbuxton - not had any issue with DS so far at this point, but simply reverse it. Currently RAW you gain conflict by being naughty. At the end of the session roll 1d10 and take away your conflict and adjust your morality as appropriate, ie +ve puts morality up, -ve takes it down.

Eg Tom has been a big meanie and acquired 8 conflict over the session. at end of session he rolls d10 and gets a 4 - this means he will lose 4 morality. (if he had rolls a 10 he would have gained 2 morality)

The reverse would be a little different.

My initial thoughts are firstly as a DS Paragon I don't believe you should be able to use the Light Side - simply not available.

Secondly when rolling morality, you get conflict for the good stuff you do, so when you are rolling the d10 you reverse the result with +ve result putting morality down, -ve taking it up.

Eg Tom's naughtiness has taken him to be a DS paragon. However the adventure has just been sickly sweet heroic gushy stuff and Tom has acquired 6 conflict. At the end of the session he rolls d10 and gets a 2 - this means in this case he gains 4 morality. (if he rolled a 10 he would have lost 4 morality).

Conflict is simply that - the mind battling with choices and raw it's aimed at good guys, but the bad guys will also have conflict issues - which couldn't be identified any better than in Jedi when Darth chucks the emperor over the edge.

I'm still a bit disappointed about the dark side cap. I always pictured it a a slow descent towards madness and decay - where evil starts to rot the foundation of the PC's morality. Like Vader, and the whole lot of other Sith lords who were slowly but surely pushed over the edge. Killing several people - even if it means 130 conflict points seems a bit ...superficial?

make a cap - as per my suggestions above, players shouldn't be getting over 10 really unless they blow up Alderaan

repetitive actions of the same simply should not reward the same conflict - it's silly.

Killing the boss and goons, not so bad. Killing the witness, that there is a Highway to the Dark Side. I'd be very tempted in that situation to immediately change their Morality to 29, with no conflict roll required. They can start using DS pips straight away! But it sounds like a good story, the problem being you have half a good group and half bad.

You probably need to chat about it OOC with the whole group to see where they want to go with it:

Is this the story of fall and redemption.

Are the "good" guys just going to kill them to stop them, or walk away to seek help killing them?

Is everyone going to fall? Becoming a dark side campaign?

Aye - as I've said, we already had that conversation. All of them agreed to keep on going and see where this will lead us. We're a mature group of people. My players do not use the out of character knowledge even if that means they could die - so no feeling will be hurt if some dies. Granted it has derailed my campaign all right haha. But that's fine - it's even more interesting now :-)

I'm still a bit disappointed about the dark side cap. I always pictured it a a slow descent towards madness and decay - where evil starts to rot the foundation of the PC's morality. Like Vader, and the whole lot of other Sith lords who were slowly but surely pushed over the edge. Killing several people - even if it means 130 conflict points seems a bit ...superficial?

Not all Darkside users are Sith lords. The vast majority of those I imagine a fairly selfish, but otherwise individuals whom are subject to the whims of the tossing tides. To be Vader or Sidious, you would litrally have to breath evil and have the power to do so. Even if someone falls to the darkside it mightn't be immediately apparent to them that anything has changed, though their actions have long lost their compassion and they only see other sentient creatures as weak willed fools to manipulate.

To murder 13 witnesses would probably warrent at least 20-30. It's a significant plummet in empathy to stuff out a bunch of lives just because they seen something the shouldn't. To quote the prequels Anakin felt terrible for murdering the Tuskian Raiders, even though he justified them as mere undignified savages. It's the kind of scene that I imagine a fall would take place.

Well, look at Count Dooku. To the masses, he was simply an ex-Jedi Master gone rogue, with only a select few knowing he was a Sith Lord. And before the Clone Wars started, he was simply a former Jedi turned political idealist, something stated in AotC by Mace Windu when suspicion was voiced that Dooku might be behind the attempt on Padme's life that opened the film.

And in RotS, by the time of the Mustafar duel, Anakin had gone completely to the dark side and yet had very little in the way of a noticeable change in appearance, just in his attitude being more prone to melodrama.

So a person at 0 Morality (dark as dark can get) won't be immediately obvious on sight, since Palps' dark side deformity has been retconned as of RotS to be a result of taking Force lightning to the face rather than dark side decay. And depending on how they handle themselves in public, their general behavior may not be an indicator. After all, Hannibal Lector is a rather affable (if creepy) individual.

I'm an old WEG guy and if your PCs hit zero Morality they're mine.

There are no caps but you can justify grouping mass murder or depraved indifference into a single amount, there is little difference between killing murdering five or ten in the same scene.

All this is irrelevant though if you have "heroic" PCs being played like Murder Hobos, Morality is a useless discussion once you let your game go that way.

Already explained above what group I have. No 'Murder Hobos' present. I most definitely will not take away any characters when morality hits 0. It has been said many times here and on order 66, this system does not penalize players for going dark side - thanks.

Again - I have no problem with understanding WHAT is good and what is bad. Or what is being used and how. No doubt about the fact that my PC's committed a murder - bad thing - several times in one session. My problem is about the numbers behind it. Per Raw it says murder is 10 points or more. My question is if a GM should consider several murders as one horrible event at the end of the game? Even Anakin didn't fall in one game ;-)

If your Players knowingly murdered thirteen non-combatant NPCs in a single session, and I mean murdered not just killed by accident or through a mistake, they're Murder Hobos. Your friends, and you, may not think they are acting psychopathic but they are.

As for choosing a suitable Conflict amount I agree that you can give them a chuck that is less than 10 each, 5,10 or 13 murders in a single scene isn't much of a difference as far a psychopaths go.

Already explained above what group I have. No 'Murder Hobos' present. I most definitely will not take away any characters when morality hits 0. It has been said many times here and on order 66, this system does not penalize players for going dark side - thanks.

Guys, Anakin didn't fall to the dark side when he killed the sand people in AotC, he took the first (admittedly big) step but that's it. If he had fallen to the dark side i am sure that someone might have sensed in him in the following years of the clone wars.

Since Anakin didn't have any sith training (at that point) and no dark side training at all he wouldn't be able to hide (from the other Jedi) that he has fallen to the dark side.

Again - I have no problem with understanding WHAT is good and what is bad. Or what is being used and how. No doubt about the fact that my PC's committed a murder - bad thing - several times in one session. My problem is about the numbers behind it. Per Raw it says murder is 10 points or more. My question is if a GM should consider several murders as one horrible event at the end of the game? Even Anakin didn't fall in one game ;-)

If your Players knowingly murdered thirteen non-combatant NPCs in a single session, and I mean murdered not just killed by accident or through a mistake, they're Murder Hobos. Your friends, and you, may not think they are acting psychopathic but they are.

As for choosing a suitable Conflict amount I agree that you can give them a chuck that is less than 10 each, 5,10 or 13 murders in a single scene isn't much of a difference as far a psychopaths go.

Already explained above what group I have. No 'Murder Hobos' present. I most definitely will not take away any characters when morality hits 0. It has been said many times here and on order 66, this system does not penalize players for going dark side - thanks.

I'm sorry Artuard, my opinion on zero Morality is mine only and was not a recommendation.

All right man, seems you know what my PC's are better than me - that's cool.

Thanks all for your advice. Peace.

Guys, Anakin didn't fall to the dark side when he killed the sand people in AotC, he took the first (admittedly big) step but that's it. If he had fallen to the dark side i am sure that someone might have sensed in him in the following years of the clone wars.

Since Anakin didn't have any sith training (at that point) and no dark side training at all he wouldn't be able to hide (from the other Jedi) that he has fallen to the dark side.

I'd be suspect of using anything character driven from the prequels as a reference, it's a lot of really poorly written and acted garbage (looks nice though).

All right man, seems you know what my PC's are better than me - that's cool.

Thanks all for your advice. Peace.

I'm just going by the information you've provided friend. Murdering that many people is, as you have admitted, bad, very bad indeed. Player's that choose to do this when other options are available are playing like Murder Hobos. They all might be nice folks but actions speak louder than words.

Lets take a few examples that have been discussed

Some said that in one of his games he fired on a bunch of non-threatening stormtroopers. While this should certainly earn a bit of conflict, this is quite different from murder as stormtroopers are generally going to be considered enemy combatants of force users. Apparently this dropped him from 71 to 0. As there seems to have been miscommunication involved, turning a PC to the darkside over a player's misunderstanding of a situation is kind of mean. I would have given him 10 conflict for the incident and called it there.

Another example discussed--the thermal detonator. You could easily kill 20 innocents with a thermal detonator. If you awarded a flat 10 conflict for each death the single incident would turn him to the darkside. In all the lore I'm aware of, the *only* times anyone ever turns to the darkside in a single event is by choice. While I'm not in the habit of quoting dictators, Stalin said "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." While I don't agree with why he said it, he does have a point--it's at the individual level that death matters and effects us. In terms of how it affects a person, I don't think there's a big difference between murdering one person and 10 people if you do it all at once.

When we do something wrong, if we do it once or twice, the behavior is easier to reverse. If it becomes a habit, it is much more difficult to break. I imagine it works similarly with the big things: there is repentance for one act of murder--even mass murder, but a serial killer has demonstrated a deliberate path downward from which it is much harder to find redemption. This is why I think conflict should be awarded on the basis of the event, and how severe the event is, not on the basis of bodycount. One should only fall to the darkside after having developed a pattern of evil behavior. One slip up, no matter how bad, isn't going to turn you into Palpatine.

Kirdan you just enlightened me. Thanks. I think that there is cause for mot than 10 conflict for mass murder, the idea that repetition creates habit resonates with me.

The tricky part with the conflict/morality system is when is a deed bad and when is it ok?

Killing a Storm Trooper for fun or a laugh is bad, very bad. Killing the same Trooper when they are trying to arrest you for shoplifting to feed your family, now that's much harder. In a third scenario if that Trooper was carrying out orders to kill witness to war crimes and the PC stopped him then no conflict would be awarded.

The method of killing is important too, launching them 200m with the Move power and letting them fall is some massive conflict. Facing them in Saber battle after negotiations go south is a lot less of a problem.

I completely disagree with you. Lightsabers kill. You can heal them after they fall, OR use heal/harm to bring them back if they died last turn. Killing is killing, the conflict is the same...

110 conflict? If that is what you can accrue, then you should be able to go past 100 morality.

The tricky part with the conflict/morality system is when is a deed bad and when is it ok?

Killing a Storm Trooper for fun or a laugh is bad, very bad. Killing the same Trooper when they are trying to arrest you for shoplifting to feed your family, now that's much harder. In a third scenario if that Trooper was carrying out orders to kill witness to war crimes and the PC stopped him then no conflict would be awarded.

The method of killing is important too, launching them 200m with the Move power and letting them fall is some massive conflict. Facing them in Saber battle after negotiations go south is a lot less of a problem.

I completely disagree with you. Lightsabers kill. You can heal them after they fall, OR use heal/harm to bring them back if they died last turn. Killing is killing, the conflict is the same...

Sorry, bad example. Luke killed many in blowing up the first Death Star, yet was not instantly a 0 Morality Dark Side Monster. Now there is some "because Plot" but I was trying to give an example of this situation that's more applicable to a PC.

My opinions (because I love force morality):

• Conflict in a single event should not be additive. Force morality is at least partially emotion based and your emotion won't be substantially different if you're killing 5 or 13 people in cold blood.
• Conflict gains should reduce as morality does (people get desensitised as mentioned above).
• Were I GMing I'd allow a player who misunderstood the description of the situation a take back.
• Anakin could well have been at <30 morality after killing the sandpeople, He would have gradually gone back up afterwards.
• Not all killing is equal, if someone poses an immanent or (maybe) long term threat to the character or others the conflict gain should be reduced (Han does not get the full conflict for shooting first for instance).

Finally onto the main thread:

The situation as described by the OP is a downright villainous act and deserves a massive conflict gain (I'd say 30 or more but I don't actually have the game so grain of salt). There are some things that we might not know about that would mitigate it but I can't imagine it would have gotten to a point of PVP fighting if many of them were the case.

Lets take a few examples that have been discussed

.....

Another example discussed--the thermal detonator. You could easily kill 20 innocents with a thermal detonator. If you awarded a flat 10 conflict for each death the single incident would turn him to the darkside. In all the lore I'm aware of, the *only* times anyone ever turns to the darkside in a single event is by choice. While I'm not in the habit of quoting dictators, Stalin said "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." While I don't agree with why he said it, he does have a point--it's at the individual level that death matters and effects us. In terms of how it affects a person, I don't think there's a big difference between murdering one person and 10 people if you do it all at once.

.

My examples in relation to thermal detonators was to show that repetitive action should not generate the same levels of threat, and ultimately to support a cap though in the original post I didn't use numbers, which I indicated in a post later on.

I'm still a bit disappointed about the dark side cap. I always pictured it a a slow descent towards madness and decay - where evil starts to rot the foundation of the PC's morality. Like Vader, and the whole lot of other Sith lords who were slowly but surely pushed over the edge. Killing several people - even if it means 130 conflict points seems a bit ...superficial?

make a cap - as per my suggestions above, players shouldn't be getting over 10 really unless they blow up Alderaan

repetitive actions of the same simply should not reward the same conflict - it's silly.

While at GenCon this year, I was in a Force and Destiny game run by Sam Stewart. One of the challenges he presented in the game was an oppurtunity to end a while bunch of lives (both imperial and non-imperial) with a single gas grenade.

When we prodded him with what kind of conflict that would bring us, he wasn't specific with the number, but he did say about 40 or 50.

I was fairly certain there were more than 4 of 5 lives we killed, but it stood to reason that it was just simpler to blanket the conflict cost for such actions than to nickel and dime it.

While at GenCon this year, I was in a Force and Destiny game run by Sam Stewart. One of the challenges he presented in the game was an oppurtunity to end a while bunch of lives (both imperial and non-imperial) with a single gas grenade.

When we prodded him with what kind of conflict that would bring us, he wasn't specific with the number, but he did say about 40 or 50.

I was fairly certain there were more than 4 of 5 lives we killed, but it stood to reason that it was just simpler to blanket the conflict cost for such actions than to nickel and dime it.

Interesting, if a bit radical take on the fall to the dark side. Two grenades is all it takes ? ;-)

After the game Sam admitted to putting the grenades in there for the moral choice. It would have made the adventure a lot easier by clearing an entire floor in the complex we were in. In fact, one of the characters was seriously considering it (though my character had the justice/cruelty strength weakness). Quick and easy path and all that.

In th end, we talked him out of it in-game. Which I think is the big disconnect with "Murder Hobo" accusations. Conflict and morality are intended to be story-telling tools. But it's secondary to what should be going on in-game. As for how I would handle these examples, I'm not sure. I tend to make those kinds of calls as they come.

One of the problems with the mechanics vs the setting is that falling to the dark side is more about motivation than action. It is about giving into darkness, fear, rage, hate, etc. Being an emotional hot mess is more likely to make someone fall than being a cold blooded sociopath. In the setting, killing someone as an efficient means to an end with no feeling (like a jedi cutting down a guard) doesn't lead down the dark side. while beating the man that murdered your friend because you are full of rage does. The in-game issue becomes how do you dictate morality and how do you judge what is in a character's heart mechanically without taking away choice from the player.

To be honest the current conflict system is a disappointment and a failure. At this point they would have been better off leaving dark or light side as a pure RP thing. If there had to be mechanics for going/being dark/light, then a simple advantage and drawback for each (like the current strain/wound adjustment for reaching paragon status).

I understand the idea of wanting some kind of duty/obligation mechanic, but they should have done something with force rank similar to duty and let players gain force powers that way. Play up your morality (good or bad) to strengthen your connection to the force. While others gain external rewards, the force users gain internal rewards with improved access to the force.

It's more about why I think. Least, that's how my GM does it and I like that.

A few missions ago, our team was tasked by a Jedi Master and Felucia High Command to infiltrate and destroy a separatist battleship that was in the final stages of activating a super weapon. My character was separated from the other Jedi who went aboard and it was my character who found the engine room where we had to plant the charges. I ended up in a fight with 8 Neimoidian engineers who I could easily have chopped apart with my saber. Instead, I activated the satchel charge, and then fought them hand to hand. Thankfully I have decent brawn and some brawl skill so I was eventually able to beat them down and then scare them off with my saber. I then planted the bomb and went to leave, only to find those same guys back at the entrance. I avoided combat, putting myself at risk of being caught in the blast to avoid killing them, and doubled back to find another way out. Which I did in the form of an escape pod.

My fellow Jedi ended up being captured and escaped, how isn't important. But he decided to save some Neimoidians on his way out. When he got them to the escape pod however he discovered there was only four seats and he had five guys. He killed one of them, then force pursued (I forget the actual name of the power) the others to forget it.

In the grand scheme of things, I killed hundreds of crew and thousands of droids when the battleship blew up. He killed one guy.

My character RPed feeling terrible afterwards. Seeking guidance from the Jedi Master about how his actions could be justified with the cost of so many lives. Her response was that it was an act of war against a military target, that the destruction of that ship had saved many others.

I actually gained (only 2) morality that game. My friend dropped from 58 to 42.

I dunno. Maybe not all of you GMs would have done the same in this situation. But the group liked how it played out.

Last game, with my foresee power, with the destruction of the battleship still fresh in my guys mind, I was granted an vision of Clone Troopers massacring engineers and mechanics as we retook a captured shipyards. The mechanics had been indoctrinated into working with the separatists, though at the time we just thought they'd defected for whatever reason and would have fought the clones and the Jedi leading them to the death.

But with my guys intervention I was able to persuade High Command to use stun weapons and the Jedi used training sabers.

I really like how that played out. Based solely on my guy feeling terrible about his earlier actions in the war.