I feel something had been misunderstood here. The Devs never say you could levitate/fly by yourself with move. They said you could lift a large object where you were standing on to fly. I know: small difference but still.

The problem is we know this is not true. In Episode III Yoda and Palpatine are throwing the senate pods at each other. All good. But then Palapatune brings out the Force Lightening, Yoda counters it, and they are both blown backwards and left dangling from pods. This tells us two things. First, neither could levitate themselves, as they would have done so rather than risk falling. But second, neither did they levitate the pods to support them, which means they couldn't do that either.

The hard rule of thumb seems to be you cannot pick yourself up. Otherwise the Jedi would have flying vests where they just picked up the bobble attached to the harness and float themselves around.

This is why I use the fulcrum metaphor. If the force is the lever you use to move things, the force user is the fulcrum on which it is based. If the fulcrum doesn't have a solid base the lever is useless.

They probably never fly on pods because it is much more hard and complicated then simply using ehance to jump, not because it was impossible.

Honestly I think people are over thinking this I would put it to gm or group vote because in the end it's about fun and if your group wants to really be that specific on force powers then let them know that it's a huge investment to make your character and choices are limited.

The problem that lead to this kind of thread is not "X doesnt work", it is GM coming here and complaining that their players destroy their encounter by throwing their Nemésis by the window or lift it in the air with Move.

If you cannot make your player understand it is morality wrong to do so or you cannot accept Force users are supposed to be better than average Joe, you should run campaign in one of the other 2 setting of this rpg instead.

This doesn't work for me. It's a personal take but I don't see why a player should get Conflict for throwing a person up into the air and letting them fall but not for, say, stabbing that person with a lightsabre or shooting them with a blaster. For me, using Conflict as a way to stop people exploiting the Move power feels wrong. It's one reason why I'm happy with what I think is the intended and rules-consistent approach of just starting with the damage dealt and using that to determine whether or not someone has just been thrown 50m in the air.

Of course you can give Conflict for stabbing people with lightsabres and shooting them with blasters, but if you do, you're going to be altering the default expectations of most Star Wars games, I think.

If for you, a force user need a Force rating of 2, the need to immobilize and maybe crush someone if he use dark pipe, to move it, then it is your choice. For myself, I will continue using the rules as written. Move can move people as much as Bind can do it.

Stabbing, shooting, or hurling someone in a wall to defend yourself is one thing. Lifting someone 50m in the air and letting him fall is another thing as immoral as slauthering dangerous people like Tusken riders because they kill your mother.

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

throwing someone up into the air to let them fall to their death is unnecessarily terrorizing your target. That is why I would give conflict. You are intentionally inspiring fear before they die.

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

throwing someone up into the air to let them fall to their death is unnecessarily terrorizing your target. That is why I would give conflict. You are intentionally inspiring fear before they die.

I presume the PC is doing it because it is a more reliable way of killing their opponent than other ways. Some quick mental arithmetic, btw, tells me that it would take about one and a half seconds to fall 10m (about 30'). Of course they have to get up there so lets count it twice. It's not going to be a fun three seconds, I agree, but you'd take longer than that to die from most fatal gunshots or stabbings. And I can't imagine they are not equally terrifying and a lot more painful. Now if a PC were taking a less effective method to kill their opponents for the sake of it being more drawn out then I can see the argument. But the player is doing this because it is, by the book, probably the most effective way for a character that has put their points in Force Move.

Is Conflict given out for any method killing an opponent that takes longer than three seconds? Because if so, any combat in which a player has to shoot or strike an opponent more than once would qualify.

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

throwing someone up into the air to let them fall to their death is unnecessarily terrorizing your target. That is why I would give conflict. You are intentionally inspiring fear before they die.

I presume the PC is doing it because it is a more reliable way of killing their opponent than other ways. Some quick mental arithmetic, btw, tells me that it would take about one and a half seconds to fall 10m (about 30'). Of course they have to get up there so lets count it twice. It's not going to be a fun three seconds, I agree, but you'd take longer than that to die from most fatal gunshots or stabbings. And I can't imagine they are not equally terrifying and a lot more painful. Now if a PC were taking a less effective method to kill their opponents for the sake of it being more drawn out then I can see the argument. But the player is doing this because it is, by the book, probably the most effective way for a character that has put their points in Force Move.

Is Conflict given out for any method killing an opponent that takes longer than three seconds? Because if so, any combat in which a player has to shoot or strike an opponent more than once would qualify.

well choosing to throw them in the air gives more terror than just slamming them into the ground. You are taking xtra time to throw them into the air when you can just slam them into the ground like Obiwan does with droids in ep I

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

throwing someone up into the air to let them fall to their death is unnecessarily terrorizing your target. That is why I would give conflict. You are intentionally inspiring fear before they die.

I presume the PC is doing it because it is a more reliable way of killing their opponent than other ways. Some quick mental arithmetic, btw, tells me that it would take about one and a half seconds to fall 10m (about 30'). Of course they have to get up there so lets count it twice. It's not going to be a fun three seconds, I agree, but you'd take longer than that to die from most fatal gunshots or stabbings. And I can't imagine they are not equally terrifying and a lot more painful. Now if a PC were taking a less effective method to kill their opponents for the sake of it being more drawn out then I can see the argument. But the player is doing this because it is, by the book, probably the most effective way for a character that has put their points in Force Move.

Is Conflict given out for any method killing an opponent that takes longer than three seconds? Because if so, any combat in which a player has to shoot or strike an opponent more than once would qualify.

well choosing to throw them in the air gives more terror than just slamming them into the ground. You are taking xtra time to throw them into the air when you can just slam them into the ground like Obiwan does with droids in ep I

Which also does a lot less damage than the falling rules do which is why the hypothetical player wants to throw them in the air in the first place, because it is likely to kill their opponent more quickly. We can pick all sorts of comparisons for what takes more time and which takes less. But the relevant comparisons are to things that don't cause Conflict because they are our benchmark. If it is not worse than something else that doesn't cause Conflict then it should not get any itself. And I don't get what makes causing someone to fall to their death inherently more immoral than shooting at that person round after round until they are dead. Both are awful things to do to someone.

The Force Move used to cause falling comes up not infrequently on these forums. Often people advise the questioning GM to solve this by assigning Conflict to doing so. But as a player, I would be pretty aggrieved by that on the grounds that other equally bad things don't get Conflict. E.g. stabbing or shooting someone. It doesn't make sense to me.

You've lost me. You said it is morally wrong for the PCs to throw someone into the air with Force Move power and this should be dissuaded by giving Conflict and that if players can't accept that Force users are supposed to be better than other people, then they shouldn't be playing this game. It may well be that throwing someone into the air is morally wrong, but my point is that it is no more morally wrong than shooting people with blasters or stabbing them with lightsabres. If you're penalizing just one type of attack then you're being a little unfair to the player that has invested the points in doing it. If you're also penalizing shooting people with blasters, then you're running a very different game to most people's Star Wars game. Dark side pips are not relevant here as if they're used - sure, that's Conflict, but this is accomplishable with only light side pips.

I don't see the logic that makes shooting or throwing someone into a wall okay, but letting them fall generating Conflict.

throwing someone up into the air to let them fall to their death is unnecessarily terrorizing your target. That is why I would give conflict. You are intentionally inspiring fear before they die.

I presume the PC is doing it because it is a more reliable way of killing their opponent than other ways. Some quick mental arithmetic, btw, tells me that it would take about one and a half seconds to fall 10m (about 30'). Of course they have to get up there so lets count it twice. It's not going to be a fun three seconds, I agree, but you'd take longer than that to die from most fatal gunshots or stabbings. And I can't imagine they are not equally terrifying and a lot more painful. Now if a PC were taking a less effective method to kill their opponents for the sake of it being more drawn out then I can see the argument. But the player is doing this because it is, by the book, probably the most effective way for a character that has put their points in Force Move.

Is Conflict given out for any method killing an opponent that takes longer than three seconds? Because if so, any combat in which a player has to shoot or strike an opponent more than once would qualify.

well choosing to throw them in the air gives more terror than just slamming them into the ground. You are taking xtra time to throw them into the air when you can just slam them into the ground like Obiwan does with droids in ep I

Which also does a lot less damage than the falling rules do which is why the hypothetical player wants to throw them in the air in the first place, because it is likely to kill their opponent more quickly. We can pick all sorts of comparisons for what takes more time and which takes less. But the relevant comparisons are to things that don't cause Conflict because they are our benchmark. If it is not worse than something else that doesn't cause Conflict then it should not get any itself. And I don't get what makes causing someone to fall to their death inherently more immoral than shooting at that person round after round until they are dead. Both are awful things to do to someone.

The Force Move used to cause falling comes up not infrequently on these forums. Often people advise the questioning GM to solve this by assigning Conflict to doing so. But as a player, I would be pretty aggrieved by that on the grounds that other equally bad things don't get Conflict. E.g. stabbing or shooting someone. It doesn't make sense to me.

That is kind of a metagamie response.

knasserII, on 22 Nov 2015 - 5:02 PM, said:knasserII, on 22 Nov 2015 - 5:02 PM, said:

knasserII, on 22 Nov 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

well choosing to throw them in the air gives more terror than just slamming them into the ground. You are taking xtra time to throw them into the air when you can just slam them into the ground like Obiwan does with droids in ep I

Which also does a lot less damage than the falling rules do which is why the hypothetical player wants to throw them in the air in the first place, because it is likely to kill their opponent more quickly. We can pick all sorts of comparisons for what takes more time and which takes less. But the relevant comparisons are to things that don't cause Conflict because they are our benchmark. If it is not worse than something else that doesn't cause Conflict then it should not get any itself. And I don't get what makes causing someone to fall to their death inherently more immoral than shooting at that person round after round until they are dead. Both are awful things to do to someone.

The Force Move used to cause falling comes up not infrequently on these forums. Often people advise the questioning GM to solve this by assigning Conflict to doing so. But as a player, I would be pretty aggrieved by that on the grounds that other equally bad things don't get Conflict. E.g. stabbing or shooting someone. It doesn't make sense to me.

Letting someone fall to his death is as gruesome as opening his chest and let him die of blood lost when you could have simply stab him in the heart. I have no problem with force users killing others but they are not obligated of using the most horrible way just because they can do it.

"I have no problem with force users killing others but they are not obligated of using the most horrible way just because they can do it."

And we have a winner!

If you as a player want to truly play a Jedi as opposed to a quasi-psychic thug with a glow-sword, then in general you'd want to try for the quickest yet most humane way of ending a conflict. If you can do it by talking, fantastic! But if violence is necessary because the other side refused to stand down, then you end the fight quickly but without resorting to overkill. Notice that Obi-Wan didn't keep slicing up the bodies in ANH or AotC when he lopped off an arm, but instead made a single cut that removed the threat factor of that person before switching off his lightsaber.

Using Move to slam someone into a wall or push them forcefully to the ground is still violent, but not excessively so and not as liable to end in the target's death. Dropping someone from even Short Range is going to inflict a lot of damage, as well as leaving the target terrified as they plummet, and is more likely than not to result in the death of the person being dropped... and is just the sort of thing a Dark Jedi or aspiring Sith Lord would do, simply because they could.

Not to make this even more of a morality focussed discussion but as for dropping people.... I wouldn't give additional conflict for picking someone up and dropping them anymore than I would for someone triggering a critical injury with Lethal Blows. Why not? Well...

F&D pg 48

"The Morality system is not, however, intended to spawn arguments between players as to whether an action is “evil” or not and whether a character should be penalized for engaging in it. In fact, the Morality system is designed to avoid that in two ways. First, the system has a specific set of guidelines as to what actions may penalize a character’s Morality (see page 324)..."

F&D pg 324
1 = Knowing Inaction, Lying for Personal Gain, or Resorting to Violence as First Solution

2 = Coercion and Threatening with Violence, or Inflicting Emotional Abuse.

2-3 = Theft

3-4 = Unnecessary Destruction

4-5 = Unprovoked Violence or Assault

6-7 = Unnecessary Cruelty to Non-Sapient Creatures

10 = Torture

10+ = Murder

No where does it say a character must not use their abilities to their maximum potential to avoid conflict.

Also, I like to avoid debatable conflict gains such as causing fear... What if the person you lift into the air isn't actually scared of heights, loves the sensation of flying, or just doesn't think he'll get hurt at that height and is calm? Should you gain conflict for giving them happy feelings before incapacitating them? What if the person is ballistophobic? Should you gain extra conflict for attacking them with a Slugthrower instead of your blaster?

Honestly, I think using your mind magic against someone who has no idea what's happening (keep in mind very few people actually see force use) is probably pretty terrifying regardless of it being used to make them fall or chucking them against the wall like a ragdoll.

I'm going to second this. And also point out the game already specifically says when a Force power causes conflict. It is written right into the powers description.

Said chart is a guideline, not the end-all and be-all of what does and does not generate Conflict in the game, and identifies itself as such, much as the chart in the Combat chapter about how to spend Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs identifies itself as a guideline and not a restrictive list of how those dice results can be spent.

Using the Force to throw someone dozens of meters into the air before they come plummeting down to the ground would certainly be seen as a form of psychological torture by a moral human being. And just the implied threat of being hurled off a helicopter to fall several meters to the ground has been used as an interrogation tactic that itself has come under fire as a form of torture.

And if you actually bother to read the rules on Conflict, they say the GM makes the final determination as to what does and does not generate Conflict. The reason it says that is because there is simply no way that the writers could conceive of every possible twisted act that a PC could come up with and assign a Conflict rating for it.

If you've watched the recent Netflix series Jessica Jones, you see a prime instance of Influence being used by the series' main villain to do all sorts of evil and twisted acts... and yet the Influence power says nothing about Conflict. So by the faulty logic of the two posters above, telling an innocent bystander to dive headfirst into a woodchipper wouldn't generate a single point of Conflict, because "the rules don't say using Influence generates Conflict!"

Defenstrator, on 23 Nov 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

I'm going to second this. And also point out the game already specifically says when a Force power causes conflict. It is written right into the powers description.

Harm and Unleashed are powers designed to damage and kill people. It is normal they write it cause conflict. Move howerver is an utilitary power. I am not going to automatically award conflict to a player who move a crate just because he can use the same power to lift someone in the air 50m over the ground and make him fall to his death.

Said chart is a guideline, not the end-all and be-all of what does and does not generate Conflict in the game, and identifies itself as such, much as the chart in the Combat chapter about how to spend Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs identifies itself as a guideline and not a restrictive list of how those dice results can be spent.

Using the Force to throw someone dozens of meters into the air before they come plummeting down to the ground would certainly be seen as a form of psychological torture by a moral human being. And just the implied threat of being hurled off a helicopter to fall several meters to the ground has been used as an interrogation tactic that itself has come under fire as a form of torture.

And if you actually bother to read the rules on Conflict, they say the GM makes the final determination as to what does and does not generate Conflict. The reason it says that is because there is simply no way that the writers could conceive of every possible twisted act that a PC could come up with and assign a Conflict rating for it.

If you've watched the recent Netflix series Jessica Jones, you see a prime instance of Influence being used by the series' main villain to do all sorts of evil and twisted acts... and yet the Influence power says nothing about Conflict. So by the faulty logic of the two posters above, telling an innocent bystander to dive headfirst into a woodchipper wouldn't generate a single point of Conflict, because "the rules don't say using Influence generates Conflict!"

I didn't say you couldn't give conflict for whatever reason you see fit, I just explained why I myself wouldn't and my reasoning included a lot more than the guideline table which you so conveniently ignored. I also don't believe that we share the same definition of "torture".

I was actually looking forward to joining the conversation that intrigued me enough to read all 6 pages of (some of which though got pretty toxic).

However, that being said, I don't like how you leapt to the assumption that I didn't bother to read rules on Morality and Conflict just because my game-play choices don't fit perfectly with yours. For that, good day.

Which also does a lot less damage than the falling rules do which is why the hypothetical player wants to throw them in the air in the first place, because it is likely to kill their opponent more quickly. We can pick all sorts of comparisons for what takes more time and which takes less. But the relevant comparisons are to things that don't cause Conflict because they are our benchmark. If it is not worse than something else that doesn't cause Conflict then it should not get any itself. And I don't get what makes causing someone to fall to their death inherently more immoral than shooting at that person round after round until they are dead. Both are awful things to do to someone.

The Force Move used to cause falling comes up not infrequently on these forums. Often people advise the questioning GM to solve this by assigning Conflict to doing so. But as a player, I would be pretty aggrieved by that on the grounds that other equally bad things don't get Conflict. E.g. stabbing or shooting someone. It doesn't make sense to me.

That is kind of a metagamie response.

How so? A shoot out is probably not going to kill someone any faster than them falling to their death and bleeding out from a fatal stab or gunshot will likely take longer. This isn't based on the number of rounds, it's based on actual reasonable description and conclusion. I'm not saying you can't give Conflict for doing it, I'm just saying that it's inconsistent not to do the same thing for both.

Using Move to slam someone into a wall or push them forcefully to the ground is still violent, but not excessively so and not as liable to end in the target's death. Dropping someone from even Short Range is going to inflict a lot of damage, as well as leaving the target terrified as they plummet, and is more likely than not to result in the death of the person being dropped... and is just the sort of thing a Dark Jedi or aspiring Sith Lord would do, simply because they could.

Sure, but just like Daeglan earlier, you're deliberately picking something that is less unpleasant for your point of comparison, when the actual point of comparison is something that is equally or more unpleasant but which doesn't earn Conflict. Flicking someone into a wall might well be a better alternative to flinging them up in the air. But the question is whether flinging them up in the air is worse than a sustained shoot out, bleeding out from stabbing, or similar things which don't get Conflict in most people's games, all else being equal. Sure, Obi Wan cuts off someone's arm in that cantina (though if you ask me, that's a pretty horrific response to someone just talking threateningly to your friend). But if he was in a gun battle against people shooting at his friends, he would presumably follow whatever quickest way he had of getting those opponents out of the fight. And if that involved Force pushing someone off a platform, would he not do that rather than allow people to keep shooting at himself and friends?

Said chart is a guideline, not the end-all and be-all of what does and does not generate Conflict in the game, and identifies itself as such, much as the chart in the Combat chapter about how to spend Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs identifies itself as a guideline and not a restrictive list of how those dice results can be spent.

Using the Force to throw someone dozens of meters into the air before they come plummeting down to the ground would certainly be seen as a form of psychological torture by a moral human being. And just the implied threat of being hurled off a helicopter to fall several meters to the ground has been used as an interrogation tactic that itself has come under fire as a form of torture.

Holding someone out of a helicopter certainly would be. But so would putting a gun to their head. And a round is a minute long. Being in a shoot out or being stabbed is similarly terrifying.

And if you actually bother to read the rules on Conflict, they say the GM makes the final determination as to what does and does not generate Conflict. The reason it says that is because there is simply no way that the writers could conceive of every possible twisted act that a PC could come up with and assign a Conflict rating for it.

I think it reasonable to give credit to the people you're arguing with that we have "actually bothered to read the rules". I don't think anyone is debating that a GM can choose to award conflict for things at their discretion, we're arguing about whether it is consistent or good to award it for this.

As I said earlier, I've generally seen this advocated in response to people worried about the tactic being overpowered. As a player, being told "no, because this is cruel" would annoy me considerably on the grounds that equally bad things are done without generating conflict.

knasserII

You're playing a Force user, and in this game that means by default you're being held to a higher standard, as the intent by the authors is that the PCs are playing good guys. Maybe they're not tied directly with the Alliance, but a Force and Destiny group is for the most part meant to be on the side of the angels, not knocking back cold ones with the devils and doing thinks that would make Palpatine chuckle with demented glee.

Force users tend to be more powerful in Star Wars RPGs, so the Morality system is there as a measuring stick to let both GM and players can see how far off the deep end a character has gone while not being as restrictive in regards to the consequences of dark side actions as prior RPGs were, including taking away the character after they fell as Saga Edition and d6 did.

If the GM is down with running a group of quasi-psychic murder-hobos, then they can ignore the Conflict rules altogether and simply let the PCs use the Force however they wish.

Well in real life good guys aren't allowed to go around shooting people. It has to be a pretty extreme circumstance to justify taking another persons life. So whether you toss them with the force, or tell them to jump in a wood chipper, or blow their brains out with a blaster, killing a person is wrong, and if one generated conflict then all would.

The only thing I'm looking for is consistentcy. If you give conflict every time the PCs kill someone that's fine. But don't pretend that using the force is bad while cutting them in half with a Lightsaber is ok and gets a free pass. I never said the GM can't give conflict for killing people. It's saying that there's none one way but some the other that doesn't work.

I mean, I honestly have to wonder if done if the people arguing there should be a double standard have ever interacted with actual players before. I saw where this conversation would go as soon as it started.

GM: Ok, you dropped him with the force and killed him. Take 8 conflict.

Player: What? Why?

GM: It was traumatic and wrong.

Player: but Joe just killed like six minions with his lightsaber. Why doesn't he get conflict?

GM: Because that wasn't with the Force, and was relatively quick.

Player: But he literally killed six times as many people!

GM: But it was the way he killed them.

Player: The way he killed them?

GM: Yes, with you they suffered more.

Player: Suffered more? He hacked them to death with a laser sword!

GM: Yes, but they didn't have to helplessly wait for their deaths.

Player: I'm pretty sure they did. Every single one after the first guy saw their death coming by lightsaber and I'm pretty sure they didn't want it.

GM: Well it's not the same.

Player: You're right it's not the same. I kill one guy and get conflict, while Conan the Jedi over their wades through them like wheat in front of a scythe and gets nothing.

GM: Well Jedi are held to a higher standard.

Player: To what? Not go on serial killer stabbing sprees? Because you don't seem to be holding him to that standard.

GM: Well they did that in the Clone Wars.

Player: And they also tried squashing people to death. Not seeing a difference here. Except that he kills six people and walks and I kill one person and now have to roll Hummanity. I mean Conflict.

The force is life. To end life using the force is to turn the force against itself, literally a disturbance in the force.

The conflict isnt from the act of killing, it's from the nausia from the force itself being thrown out of whack.

Sorry, not buying it. Maybe back in the WEG days when the lights side was for knowledge and defence, but we've had the Prequels and a bunch of TV series since then. We have regularly seen Jedi throw people into things, throw things into people, and shove people into danger.

Obi-wan and Anakin shoved people around, or caught and threw them, and you have Yoda trying to squash the Emperor with senate pod. Even in Rebels you see them deliberately toss Vader under a falling AT-ST, and the only conflict they showed was how disappointed they were it didn't crush the life out of him.

If a player uses Influence to make a person dive into a wood chipper then Conflict. But it's the same Conflict that you give the other player that just picked a guy up and shoved him in. What matters is what they did, not how they did it. Otherwise you're just treating players differently due to arbitrary stuff you're making up. And then you will see conflict, with your players.

Defenstrator, on 23 Nov 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:Defenstrator, on 23 Nov 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:Defenstrator, on 23 Nov 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

Sorry, not buying it. Maybe back in the WEG days when the lights side was for knowledge and defence, but we've had the Prequels and a bunch of TV series since then. We have regularly seen Jedi throw people into things, throw things into people, and shove people into danger.

Obi-wan and Anakin shoved people around, or caught and threw them, and you have Yoda trying to squash the Emperor with senate pod. Even in Rebels you see them deliberately toss Vader under a falling AT-ST, and the only conflict they showed was how disappointed they were it didn't crush the life out of him.

If a player uses Influence to make a person dive into a wood chipper then Conflict. But it's the same Conflict that you give the other player that just picked a guy up and shoved him in. What matters is what they did, not how they did it. Otherwise you're just treating players differently due to arbitrary stuff you're making up. And then you will see conflict, with your players.

Who said what we saw in the prequel was right? The Clone War destroy the Jedi order both physically than morally. That was Palpatine goal so of course you are gonna see jedi making bad thing.

I am not saying force users that fight should alway get conflict. I am talking about unnecessary cruelty.

I run FaD since the beta and I never had conflict with my players. You know why? I established guidelines with them during session 0. Every GM should do this with a morality system. It avoid so much troubles. My players knew what I consider Worth conflict. That didn't stop some of them doing awfull things but they never complained that I made arbitrary decision because they knew what they were doing. Conflict is a narrative tool, not a penalty, so it is not the end of the world if you get somes during a session.

I just recently bought all 3 core books and am planning a game in the future. This is my first post, so "hi everyone".

Quick question for the group. Reading through this particular thread, I see many believe that Bind can only be used on living beings. My question is how they would simulate using the force to crush something like a droid, like an empty beer can? We see at the end of Revenge of the Sith, that Vader/Anakin uses the force to crush the droids around him when he learns of Padme's death. I would rule this is Bind, but if it can't be used on inanimate objects, then I'm not sure how to simulate it.

Hi Talos

Since droids can move, they can be immobilized and they can also take damages so yeah Bind should work on them.

knasserII

You're playing a Force user, and in this game that means by default you're being held to a higher standard, as the intent by the authors is that the PCs are playing good guys. Maybe they're not tied directly with the Alliance, but a Force and Destiny group is for the most part meant to be on the side of the angels, not knocking back cold ones with the devils and doing thinks that would make Palpatine chuckle with demented glee.

Force users tend to be more powerful in Star Wars RPGs, so the Morality system is there as a measuring stick to let both GM and players can see how far off the deep end a character has gone while not being as restrictive in regards to the consequences of dark side actions as prior RPGs were, including taking away the character after they fell as Saga Edition and d6 did.

If the GM is down with running a group of quasi-psychic murder-hobos, then they can ignore the Conflict rules altogether and simply let the PCs use the Force however they wish.

I think Defenstrator has already put it better than I would have replied. And I've made my point clear three times so far and each reply just side-steps the key issue. I've never said anything about running "a group of quasi-psychic murder-hobos". I pointed out the weird inconsistency of one particular method of murder being considered inherently immoral and punished when equally terrible methods get a pass. A player would be entirely legitimate in feeling a double-standard was being applied to them. Also, I am unconvinced that Force users are particularly more powerful than non-Force users in this system. FFG did a spectacularly good job of balancing everything, imo. Please do not strawman what I've said "group of murder-hobos" is nowhere implied or tell me I'm ignoring the rules, because what I'm saying is fully consistent with the rules.

The force is life. To end life using the force is to turn the force against itself, literally a disturbance in the force.

The conflict isnt from the act of killing, it's from the nausia from the force itself being thrown out of whack.

This is a self-consistent rationale. But I don't think it's one that has any particular reason to be adopted. If one did adopt it, why would one not apply it to any cases of the Force being used to kill someone, e.g. throwing a crate into someone with Force Move, or hurling the victim against a wall which some are suggesting is okay? Again, if one, why not the other?