Hey guys,

I've read the whole book but can't any information about the limit of conflict a player can get on one session?

I mean we get the list of 'sins' but nowhere does it say there is a fixed number of conflict a player can get per game?

If this question has been answered...then sorry - search didn't give me any results

I guess anything past 110 is pointless, but that's about it.... Sam Stewart... and the women... and the children. (The Order 66 podcast episode 61) it was discussed briefly.

The main thing is it should be a major life event for the PC if they are going to have a big fall like this, the example used in the episode is Anakin killing the village of Tuskan Raiders.

Right - so a player can accumulate 110 conflict points at one game? I mean if he murders 11 people that's it. Not really a major life event but just some killing spree - is that all it takes to fall?

Yeah, I mean, mass murder has a tendency to do funny things to a persons mental state.

Note that there is a large difference between outright cold mass murder and defending yourself against 11 storm-troopers who are trying to kill you.

Yeah, I mean, mass murder has a tendency to do funny things to a persons mental state.

Note that there is a large difference between outright cold mass murder and defending yourself against 11 storm-troopers who are trying to kill you.

Agreed, I've noticed the difference ;-) Well if this is true then it's very easy to fall to the dark side ( achievable on one session ) which begs to ask, why even bother and spend starting XP to be on 30 conflict at the beginning. I'm asking because my PC's have killed several people ( 13 ) during one game play and I've only given them 15 conflict for that - thinking that this is breaking the whole 'slow temptation' thing?

If your players are committing flat out mass murder then I don't see what slow temptation they could possibly need. They should be well into the Dark Side already. That is flat out unarguably evil.

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.

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 are committing flat out mass murder then I don't see what slow temptation they could possibly need. They should be well into the Dark Side already. That is flat out unarguably evil.

All this happened in less than 30 minutes in game. Do you really think that falling to the dark side is that quick?...

If it was deliberate and without justification, yes. Anakin has only really one big bad event before he falls. He slaughters the Tuskens. Then he spends a while being the hero of the Republic and mostly doing his best to be a Jedi. Then he murders Dooku and finally doesn't save Windu. That's one mass murder, one individualI'm going to be watching Star Wars at midnight on Tuesday Night/Wednesday 16th morning. Want to come along? one and one murder by inaction. All of which could arguably be ameliorated a little by justification.

I am honestly confused by the suggestion that falling to the Dark Side should be harder. The whole moral philosophy of Star Wars is that evil is easy and good is hard.

Well yeah, I'd agree that triple pre-meditated murders should definitely merit a large amount of conflict. If your player is actively trying to go dark-side (which is looks like) then fine, any "good" PC's or NPCs in his aquaintance would certainly notice and take action.

The more important bit, more than how "fast" or slow it goes mechanically, is why is the PC doing this? Is the player unaware of the tenets and goals of the "good" roles the players usually have in FoD? Is he disinterested and wants to play a baddie? Regardless a conversation about that off game would facilitate a better story and progression for everyone.

Another thing is how to award that conflict. Murdering three people in one sequence of events would probably merit "just" 10-15 points of conflict for "triple murder", not 30. Murdering three individuals spread out over a week or two, probably 30, or more. In that case each event has more of a separate and distinct impact.

Another thing is how to award that conflict. Murdering three people in one sequence of events would probably merit "just" 10-15 points of conflict for "triple murder", not 30. Murdering three individuals spread out over a week or two, probably 30, or more. In that case each event has more of a separate and distinct impact.

^ This. This is exactly my question here - how to award conflict for 13 murders than happened almost instantly. Circumstances and reason behind this is irrelevant. I'm only asking about the cap - if there is any. Looks like you would solve it the same way like I did.

Yeah, there's no real cap on how much Conflict a PC can earn in the course of a session.

If you've got a sadistic murder-hobo in the party, they could very easily go from a starting Morality of 50 to 0 in the course of a single session, especially as each separate act of torture or murdering an innocent/helpless being net you 10 Conflict at a minimum, and that multiple counts of deliberate homicide of the innocent or helpless in a single act would itself incur large amounts of Conflict.

Of course, if you've got a player like that, who sees getting to the dark side as a race, maybe the better question to ask is "why does this guy want to play Star Wars, which is generally about being the good guys in the good vs. evil struggle?" It's one thing to play on the slippery slope to the dark side... it's another to grab a toboggan, lube up the blades, and then take a running start down said slope.

I had a character ask the very same question, and this popped into my head:

"Excuse me, Lord Vader. You can stop slaying younglings now, you can't get any more conflict this session."

I can't imagine there would be a cap to conflict earned in a session, but especially if you think Luke blowing up the Death Star is conflict worthy, I would temper it by the circumstances.

If your players are committing flat out mass murder then I don't see what slow temptation they could possibly need. They should be well into the Dark Side already. That is flat out unarguably evil.

All this happened in less than 30 minutes in game. Do you really think that falling to the dark side is that quick?...

Palpatine seemed convinced that Luke would fall solely for trying to kill him -- the most hated man in the Galaxy, and rightly so -- in anger, so ... yeah?

You are under no obligation to explain the circumstances, but if your Force-sensitive PCs really committed a baker's dozen of entirely unjustified murders inside 30 minutes, the speed of their fall to the Dark Side would not be my top concern. In the real world, many people on the list of infamous mass murderers didn't manage that many victims.

Just out of curiosity, are your players gunning for an anti-hero game?

Of course, if you've got a player like that, who sees getting to the dark side as a race, maybe the better question to ask is "why does this guy want to play Star Wars, which is generally about being the good guys in the good vs. evil struggle?" It's one thing to play on the slippery slope to the dark side... it's another to grab a toboggan, lube up the blades, and then take a running start down said slope.

Or, you know... just start as a darksider....

Inquisitors go on adventures too ya know!

As far as I know a murder is a murder. If a single PC killed 13 innocents they don't even need to roll at the end of the session, they are morality 0.

What was the rest of the party doing? If they stood by and watched then they get maybe 8 each for each murder. So your whole party could be Dark Siders.

Out of interest do you let players know when they are about to do something that "your about to get some conflict" or do you wait until the end of session?

I'm assuming you know this as well but just because someone is a Dark Sider does not mean everyone knows it, it's only through seeing their actions and using force powers such as Sense that another person could realise the situation. Hard because players vs PC knowledge will be tricky in situations like this.

In this situation I can think of a few reasons to put a cap on how much they can shift morality in one session.

-Giving a reason to even take morality over credits and/or exp.

-Light side can't keep up. There is no way for some one seeking light side paragon to get there as fast as dark side can even with a 10pt cap on morality shift.

-Discouraging 'lol random' mass murder sprees. This can really mess with the tone of a game.

As far a justifying that cap ten points is still a big jump with only 5 sessions needed to go from neutral to 0 morality dark side. After all something like five different Murders over time with malevolent intent caries more weight than killing all 11 people in the room because “I want to use the dark side”

Other ways to discourage this behavior is for it to have other consequences, like getting imperials or crime families attention. After getting a serious bounty hunter or inquisitor/agent on their tail for killing a cantina full of innocents they should think twice about doing it again. Or even getting the kind of reputation that makes shops close up and valuble contacts avoid you.

thingArtuard, on 20 Oct 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

AshesFall, on 20 Oct 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

Another thing is how to award that conflict. Murdering three people in one sequence of events would probably merit "just" 10-15 points of conflict for "triple murder", not 30. Murdering three individuals spread out over a week or two, probably 30, or more. In that case each event has more of a separate and distinct impact.

^ This. This is exactly my question here - how to award conflict for 13 murders than happened almost instantly. Circumstances and reason behind this is irrelevant. I'm only asking about the cap - if there is any. Looks like you would solve it the same way like I did.

There is no cap. Like many things in this game, it is up to the GM to decide how many conflicts they want to award. The numbers in the rule book are only guideline.

Just out of curiosity, are your players gunning for an anti-hero game?

I suppose I should elaborate on the subject. Yeah, two PC's are clearly heading that direction. While one is staying neutral and one is clearly a positive character. It will be hard to run but there is hoping :-) We already had a conversation about this and all PC's are happy with this situation.

As far as I know a murder is a murder. If a single PC killed 13 innocents they don't even need to roll at the end of the session, they are morality 0.

What was the rest of the party doing? If they stood by and watched then they get maybe 8 each for each murder. So your whole party could be Dark Siders.

Out of interest do you let players know when they are about to do something that "your about to get some conflict" or do you wait until the end of session?

I'm assuming you know this as well but just because someone is a Dark Sider does not mean everyone knows it, it's only through seeing their actions and using force powers such as Sense that another person could realise the situation. Hard because players vs PC knowledge will be tricky in situations like this.

The two more 'positive' characters were actively opposing the situation until they were unable to do anything. I inform my PC's about morality loss prior to the action. Long story short they refused to return a plot item to the employer, got in conflict with him ( black sun guys ) at the meeting point and then murdered him and his entourage. They then dispatched all witnesses. That was the 13 casualties. ( and disabled 2 PC's that tried to stop them - didn't kill them ).

Anyway - thanks for the conflict answer Gents. I shall think this over.

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?

Oh man, i really hope you can continue the campaign but to me it sounds that you need to split the group in two and run a different kind of campaign for each group.

First of all consider what the players are getting conflict for. For example they see a "baddie" in the very busy market and rather than lure them out, one player starts with a thermal detonator into the baddie. That's pretty bad and reward conflict.

Later on the same player sees another enemy in a cantina, and once again it's thermal detonator time. Now it's clear he has no cares for collateral damage, or indeed other sentient life. Both of these are bad, but the second should gain less conflict than the first, as clearly the character is morally desensitised to the situation.

Furthermore as characters head towards the dark side (and I can see players gaming this, as this is the first game where DS don't get stupid penalties all over the show like the d20 stat loss rules....) conflict gains should be reduced, after you committed hundreds of despicable acts, a few more is not going to affect your black soul by much.

Another consideration (and beware the gaming) but once a player has hit dark side paragon, reverse the rules on conflict in such that the player is now gaining conflict in relation to acts of heroism, generosity and compassion, with the roll at the end determining a gain in morality rather than a loss.

We have house rules in our game that the GM has come up with that makes the dark side much more tempting. Some of the players are unfortunately slipping that way, slowly taking advantage of these house rules a little at a time. It's actually pretty cool.

I have so far only given in to the dark side pips few enough times, in the direst of circumstances, that I could count it on one hand. I learnt my lesson the first time we played F&D. I misunderstood what the GM had said and I ended up obliterating dozens of storm troopers with anti ship weaponry (GM said there was X amount of storm troopers visible. I thought he meant that the storm troopers were chasing after us (we'd just escaped from an inquisitor, so I did have reason to assume what I assumed!) so once we boarded our ship, I ran straight to the turrets and opened fire! The GM smirked but started doing the damage rolls and the other players looked confused and then laughed. It wasn't until the other PCs ran up to me in character that I realized my OOC mistake. But by then, it was too late. I went from 71 morality to 0 in seconds!). Fortunately, that campaign came to an end shortly afterwards. One of the other PCs flew us into a star. It wasn't the most successful of games all around

We also have the reversed conflict house rule for the dark siders, but that's not come into play yet.