We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

Looking over the chart and guidance on pg 324, I think even more could be justified (though I don't know the specifics about each of these situations).

a. I'd file this under unnecessary destruction for a minimum of 3, but you mention specifically out of rage, so I'd give 4.

b. I'm assuming this was a lone opponent who stood zero chance against the party, and so killing him was a choice, not just survival. Given my assumption 2 seems fine, but specifically for vengeance could be taken as being selfish, garnering an extra 1-2 points.

c. This one is straight out of the chart, so IMO 2 is appropriate.

Personally, I know I'll be GMing the morality mechanic sooner or later and I have had concern over this type of situation. I think I'll need to have a chat with my player/players up front telling them I will not pull punches when it comes to awarding conflict. If you don't award it every single time it could be given out I feel the PC could quickly end up with high morality in spite of doing bad things.

I think everything you listed is within the norm, maybe even less than what could be given. Like Hinklemar said, if you don't give out conflict, it will skew the game by having the PC's end up with a high morality score regardless of bad decisions.

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

Wow. That wouldn't be near enough at my table. In fact, if somebody wanted to play a "mutilate a dead body" scene, I'd just kick them out of the game.

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

Wow. That wouldn't be near enough at my table. In fact, if somebody wanted to play a "mutilate a dead body" scene, I'd just kick them out of the game.

It also feels a bit lowish to me. As a couple have mentioned, because negative emotions were in play (and presumably fairly powerful) in all these cases an extra 1-2 conflict can easily be added. Additionally, you don't mention if these were given out to a single player or the party. I am going to assume that each case is an amount awarded to one character (the one performing the action). However, if the rest of the party is present and doesn't attempt to stop the offending character that can also be an additional 1-2 conflict for each of them as well.

On top of this, I'll try to add some relative perspective that will hopefully help you feel more comfortable with your decisions and amounts. Let us even say you are handing out basically 2-3 conflict per player per session. You have played 4 sessions now, this means after each session they would roll a d10 for morality gain. With 2-3 conflict each they have a roughly 15-20% chance of breaking even or loosing morality and an 80-85% chance of increasing. Let's say that their rolls end up relatively average over the 4 sessions.. that would be roughly 22 on the dice minus say 10 for conflict across all 4 sessions, that means they have still increased morality by 12 points over 4 sessions despite having committed decidedly negative acts like mutilating a dead body out of rage or seeking vengeance and killing someone. I would say, with acts like those they should be fairly glad they're not declining!

Opportunities to gain small amounts of Conflict should be welcomed with open arms by the group, because that gives them the best opportunity to increase their Morality through the dice roll at the end of the session. If they don’t gain any Conflict, then they don’t get to roll.

So, with regards to the mechanics of the game, they should actively seek out small amounts of Conflict per session.

If they’re doing seriously negative things like you mentioned, I think I’d give them more than just a small amount of Conflict, because they really should be dissuaded from doing those kinds of things.

Opportunities to gain small amounts of Conflict should be welcomed with open arms by the group, because that gives them the best opportunity to increase their Morality through the dice roll at the end of the session. If they don’t gain any Conflict, then they don’t get to roll.

That is not 100% accurate. There is no requirement what-so-ever that you must GAIN conflict to be able to increase Morality and that would be a pretty stupid requirement in my books. However, and I think this may be what you mean, I believe it is generally the intended principle that there must be the OPPORTUNITY to gain some conflict during the session for the Morality role to come into play at the end of the session. However, even this is up for some debate and has been debated at length in other threads, suffice it to say that because all examples provided are cases where not only did the player not have the opportunity to gain conflict they didn't have this ability because they were unable to participate at all as opposed to the whole party not getting to make the roll because the session didn't involved any potential for conflict gain.

As I stated, I am certainly on the side that players should encounter the opportunity to gain conflict before they can make the Morality roll, otherwise they've not really done anything of consequence and so haven't done anything to warrant that moral and personal growth. I also feel that players should be welcoming these opportunities because it means they are being put into positions where they have to make meaningful choices... leave the man who killed our informant/friend to be dealt with by authorities or take vengeance and gain immediate satisfaction? As one example. They now have to think about how their character would react to these situations.

Wow. That wouldn't be near enough at my table. In fact, if somebody wanted to play a "mutilate a dead body" scene, I'd just kick them out of the game.

Someone doing something cold and calculated, yeah that's probably not the type of game I'm into. On the other hand, I could see someone who has had their buttons pushed all game long, landing the killing blow and then flipping out and wailing on a defeated enemy in the heat of the moment. That's fine with me.

Here's how I'd break it down:

* Mutilated a dead enemy - I'd probably go 7-8, depending on the character's state of mind and a couple of other factors.

* Killed an enemy out of vengeance - I'd go 10 easy, perhaps more depending on how and whatnot.

* Coercing physically an ally - Yeah, 2 seems about right.

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

I would have probably given more:

a) A base of 3 or 4 for "Unnecessary Destruction", plus 1 or 2 more for the rage.

b) This depends a lot in the context. If the enemy was helpless when killed (think Anakyn executing Count Dooku), that's 10 Conflict for "Murder", maybe more if done under rage or extreme violence. on the other end, if the enemy wasn't helpless and the characer was serene/at peace while fighting, then maye I wouldn't have given any conflict. it really depends a lot in the context.

c) 2 Conflict seems about right as per "Cohertion and threatening with violence".

That said, I think it's important that your players understand that Conflict isn't a punishmen but rather a tool to help them tell their characters' story. It's not like other Star Wars RPGs were you risk losing your character to the Dark Side as an NPC (one of the many reasons I love and choose this RPG over the others).

RusakRakesh, on 15 Dec 2015 - 08:02 AM, said:

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict. So far the instances of gaining are-

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

All instances were not related to their Morality Weakness.

Am I too strict?

You are running a FaD game are you players are not happy receiving conflict after mutilating a body or coercing an ally? Stop the game to have a discussion about what they want or switch to EoTE instead. By the look of it, they haven't understand what is Jedi morality.

As for your question: you are not enought strict. Like the others said, mutilating a body deserve much more conflict that what you gave and killing someone that is not a direct threat to you or others is considered a murder, so at least 10 conflict.

That is not 100% accurate. There is no requirement what-so-ever that you must GAIN conflict to be able to increase Morality and that would be a pretty stupid requirement in my books.

For those who are curious, this is answered in the “FFG Developer Answered Questions” thread, in the post at < https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/?view=findpost&p=1911499 >.

That is not 100% accurate. There is no requirement what-so-ever that you must GAIN conflict to be able to increase Morality and that would be a pretty stupid requirement in my books.

For those who are curious, this is answered in the “FFG Developer Answered Questions” thread, in the post at < https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/?view=findpost&p=1911499 >.

Well that supports my statement. You do not have to gain conflict to be able to gain morality. You do, however, need to have had the opportunity to gain conflict. I'm glad they cleared that up though since it wasn't (as written) absolutely certain and spelled out but, as I said, that is the way I would handle it personally.

2

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

I'd actually want to hear the details of this one because you don't normally coerce allies.

If it's something like 'grab him by the arm, drag him outside, and demand to know what he's playing at' (after he just needlessly insulted the important NPC), that probably isn't coercion in the morality sense.

We only played so far 4 sessions but I have serious resentment from my players to handing Conflict.

Am I too strict?

Wow. That wouldn't be near enough at my table. In fact, if somebody wanted to play a "mutilate a dead body" scene, I'd just kick them out of the game.

It sounds like it's more than one player. I had a similar struggle back in d20 Star Wars with a group of friends. I still play in some of that group's games, but I found a new group to GM for.

Seeing as this is posted in the EotE threads not in the FaD threads, I have to one wonder a few things.

First. Are the EotE threads becoming the catch all forum for most everything? It would be nice if people posting questions would be a little more specific in some regards.

Second. Are you plying EotE or FaD, or a combination or all three books.

Third, what was the social contract and group rules that were discussed at the beginning of the game? It seems that there is a lot of confusion going going on and a lot of disconnect between you and your group.

For me, I'm running a 1970's era themed New York style Mob style Star War game on Nar Shaddaa. It is pretty strictly EotE, with some classes and some stuff from AoR. I am using they Duty Mechanic for The Family (in place of the Rebellion) and Obligation. I am not using Morality from FaD as, I think that would be stupid. To the OP: Did you and your group agree to play EotE? Did you inform your group you would be using the the Morality mechanic from FaD? If not, and you just "sprang" it on them, I would say you are in the wrong. Remember, all three books are separate games, and nothing says they all have to be used, and nothing says you can't. But if you are running and Edge game, do you really need to track Morality? What purpose does it serve in the grand scheme or your story? If you are only going to use it as a tool to alter player/character behavior, then you are missing the point and intent of it completely and mis-using it. Morality is not designed to alter or curb player/character behavior.

Keep in mind too, that it is just not player/character actions that rack up the conflict points. Certain situations can also cause conflict, and if you are going to Morality System, really trying to find situations that can cause players these conflicts is what I think it it is really about.

Anyway, you didn't mention what system you were using, if you are not using FaD, I suggest dropping the Morality mechanic altogether. It seems your players are not enjoying it anyway. If you do not enjoy the players doing more gruesome types things in the game, no in game mechanic system will alter that. It will just create a "me-vs-you" feel. You need to talk to your players and lay down the limitations of what is acceptable and what is not at your table and your game. Basically, you need to lay down the MPAA Rating on your game (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-27, X).

When I created my game, we all sat down, and created it together, and decided the rules and limitations of it. (MPAA R) We decided to emulate the feel of the modern mob movies. Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, Sorpranos, Donnie Brasco, Black Mass, etc. with the caveat that the players are a Group, and will stick together. They are the Team, and will not backstab each other or fight each other. They are they only ones in the Family that they can trust. So, executions, beatings, threats, other bad things happen, we just really go into detail of it. We just say, yeah, I'm done with him, we whack him. We don't feel the need to go into gory detail of it.

Seeing as this is posted in the EotE threads not in the FaD threads, I have to one wonder a few things.

Probably because neither AoR or FaD forums have a subsection for Game Masters.

Thanks for the input from everyone
We decided together that conflict from narration stuff will be handed by the players to themselves.

Question about awarding Conflict points:

1) When a PC lies more than once in a scene (two Deception checks for something important for example), do I award twice or only once 1 Conflict?

2) If the PC's lies, from the question 1, lead to death of the guards (for example he lied to get info about the guards positions) caused by the associates of that PC, does the PC who lied receives additional Conflict as he is partly responsible for the guards death?

3) If a PC assaults a NPC and kills him, do I award 10 Conflict for murder or 5 for assasult and 10 for murder? In other words, do I use the highest possible penalty for the scene or I add all of them? I am always positive that I read somewhere that I use the highest only, but it can be my imagination from some other system .

Given the fact that Anakin murdered the entire village of Tuskens and did not go over to the DS, I think it should be for the highest act in the entire scene. Otherwise, Anakin should get like 100+ Conflict and would be dark side guy immediately.

4) The PC are robbers, the guards catch them and assault. The PCs kill the guards. The guards assaulted them, but the PCs are the robbers and would not be assaulted if they did some honest work. The PC did not murder them, the guards were not defensless, but yet the guards are the good guys here, not the PCs. What Conflict do you award?

Thx!

1) I would usually award conflict once

2) Intention matters here, accidents happen. What is reasonable to assume here? Did the PC knew that this will lead to violence and death or not? If he lures someone into their death, you can apply murder. If that is just how it played out and the PC assumed it would go otherwise you might just play it out different. When in doubt just inform the player that his PC can safely assume that those guards are gonna die because of his actions and if he really wants to follow this path. Fair warnings are fair.

3) Max conflict per session is usually capped at 10. As GM you are free to go above and beyond that, but usually it is approirate to keep it at that. Furthermore murder implies assault, adding all minior things up until you reach the final point would be a rather inconvenient way to handle things, so just don't do it. BTW, I am not sure if Anakin did not switched a few times to the dark side and back again during the clone wars. His history in TCW seems full of character development and changes in his approach.

4) The PC committed murder, no questions ask there. There is always an non-lethal option and the only reason the PC killed the guy were base motives. They could have surrendered, they could have use non-lethal force, they could have tried to escape, they could have applied medicine to safe the guard, they could have called for help afterwards, they could have not used critical hits on him. Murder without shimmer of doubt. 10 conflict for everyone. And it does not matter one bit if the guards are the good or the bad guys, it murder regardless of the morality of the guy whom you murder.

Furthermore, do you know how hard it is to kill someone in this system? Incapacitating is easy, but killing is actually hard, accidents nearly never happen, which makes self-defense without killing someone rather easy.

A point about #1 lying generates conflict when it's done for selfish/nefarious reasons, which sounds like the case here. Lying for benign or neutral reasons ("They went that way!" "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat." etc) generally doesn't. As with #2, intent matters.

Otherwise I'd agree with SEApocalypse on this one: it's a single instance of lying even if it involved multiple false statements.

Quote

a. Mutilated a dead enemy, out of rage - 3

Depends on how much raging is going on, and the context of the scene. If it were - oh, say when Corey Feldman flips out on Jason at the end of Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter and wails on his "dead" body with a machete, I'd go 7 or 8

Quote

b. Killed an enemy out of vengeance (after the enemy killed an ally) - 2

Straight out murder? 10, easy. Murder in the name of vengeance? Well beyond 10.

Quote

c. Coercing physically an ally after a joke - 2

Depends on how it went down and the context of the scene, but I'd say 2 is fine.

On 12/15/2015 at 8:02 AM, RusakRakesh said:

Am I too strict?

Personally I think you may have been a little too easy on the PCs in a couple of these situations.

Scenario A - I'd have probably assigned 5 Conflict, as there was no need for that degree of violence on an already defeated enemy, especially if it was done while in a state of anger.

Scenario B - Unless the enemy was an active combatant and able to defend themselves, you're talking murder, which carries a minimum Conflict 'award' of 10 points and can go up from there If this was a foe that could actively fight back and was actively attacking the PCs, then I might only assign 1 or 2 points of Conflict for acting out of anger. If the PC deliberately hunted down this enemy but said enemy wasn't totally helpless/at their mercy, then probably 5 Conflict.

Scenario C - This one is way too situational with not enough information, but based upon what little info we do have, 2 Conflict seems about right.

To me like their actions looked like they were actively wanting to go to the dark side. Anger, rage, vengeance, ect... "Reward" them as such.

19 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

3) Max conflict per session is usually capped at 10.

That leads to my last question. You ask to roll for Conflict per session as per RAW or after a certain, logic part of an adventure?

In my experience sessions often (in case of a campaign almost always) end in a middle of something, leading to a situation that a PC can "reset" his Conflict points although a chapter (adventure) is not finished. When a PC, for example, enters a base full of imperials, he should not have a chance to zero his Conflict points in the middle of it just because the session ended and there is a big chance will earn more Conflict in a moment.

What is your opinion about it? Thx!

31 minutes ago, NicoDavout said:

That leads to my last question. You ask to roll for Conflict per session as per RAW or after a certain, logic part of an adventure?

In my experience sessions often (in case of a campaign almost always) end in a middle of something, leading to a situation that a PC can "reset" his Conflict points although a chapter (adventure) is not finished. When a PC, for example, enters a base full of imperials, he should not have a chance to zero his Conflict points in the middle of it just because the session ended and there is a big chance will earn more Conflict in a moment.

What is your opinion about it? Thx!

I am in agreement with the raw here. If the session was short, delay the dice roll, until a more appropiate them, if the sessions are rather long, allow a dice roll in between, find something which works for your group to make conflict interesting and balanced.

Besides, if your sessions usually ends in the middle of the action, you should adjust your planning for the sessions and your encounter designs, because this is a bad habit as a GM. You want to avoid this usually, still in that case, just delay the roll of over their part of the adventure as suggested in the CRB.