It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

And again, the story elements that Star Wars relies on see's a big difference. The tropes that Star Wars relies on (and this game relies on frankly) say that using your powers to dead is dead is more morally wrong. It falls back to Uncle Ben's "with great power comes greater responsibility." It's a feature of the story telling. A really old feature at that.

In stories like Star Wars dead isn't dead. Standards are different. People with powers are held to a different moral code than those who aren't. They are expected to know, do, and be better than their mundane counterpart. It's part of the price they pay for having powers that mark them as unique and special.

If that's not a story element you enjoy, cool. But then you really shouldn't be playing Star Wars, or Force and Destiny in particular since the entire story is built on the idea that while dead is dead, people who have powers have a higher obligation not to use those powers to make people dead.

It's not something everyone can agree with, but it is something that you're signing onto once you decide to play this game.

Different stories rely on different things. Can't really fault Star Wars, and Force and Destiny in particular, for doing what they felt would make a good story.

So if the same person uses a blaster to kill someone, or a lightsaber, or "Force-pushes" them off a cliff... for the same reason, and with the same result... that's different somehow?

Yes. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you.

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

Why do you keep leaving out the word unnecessary?

It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

In some respects I agree with you on a personal real life level.

In Star Wars tho, it very much matters if you are shooting someone with a blaster; or drawing on a twisted and broken part of the Force that makes up all of existence, to hurl bolts of warped lightening bolts (a physical manifestation of your own hate, anger, and personal despair) to melt your enemies.

In the same regard if you use the less twisted part of that power to toss a guy into a wall whom is coming after you, the act itself is reflective and could be defensive in nature. To lift a man a ways up, multiple rnds even, displays a premeditated, unnecessarily cruel desire to make a point. Intent will be factored into my game, the majority of conflict will be from the end result.. but intent can definitely add a couple points.

In my old WEG sw game, the PCs had to choose between getting the bad guy and letting a cap ship crash into Coruscant. They chose to get the bad guy. In the final fight the bad guys minion said that they had perfectly calculated the trajectory and it would crash into the Jedi Temple. Our pirate PC said that the bad guys were too dumb to accurately plot such a trajectory and bet him 5 credits it would miss. The minion laughed, agreed and said something akin to "you won't live long enough to collect"

After they killed the bad guy and rounded up all the minion prisoners and were dropping down in escape pods. I gave one the most vivid descriptions I have ever delivered of carnage and death as a corvette crashed through multiple buildings on a city planet. As I finished the description there was at least a full 15 seconds of silence as my 6 PCs contemplated what they had done.. then the pirate PC (my big sister) jumped up and pointed at me and yelled at the top of her lungs "YOU OWE ME 5 credits!!"

She wasn't even the one who made the final call to go after the bad guy, and I doubled her dark side points just for that.. the end result and methods were the same, but morality in Star Wars is a personal struggle much more then a set of commandments.

Tangents aside, I'm noticing a strong feeling that outside of "the law" (Imperial or locals) the main other limiting factor on force users is the Morality system itself.

In "high level" (750+ exp) games how have your non force users stacked up w force users? If your force users weren't overly worried about the law or Conflict, would they completely outclass non force users?

Tangents aside, I'm noticing a strong feeling that outside of "the law" (Imperial or locals) the main other limiting factor on force users is the Morality system itself.

In "high level" (750+ exp) games how have your non force users stacked up w force users? If your force users weren't overly worried about the law or Conflict, would they completely outclass non force users?

I've never reached that high XP with PC's, but I can speculate. This is where the Force dice and Dark Side force rules come into their own. Most Dark Sides of the dice only have 1 pip, but Light Sides are majority 2. So when you get more dice in the hands of a Dark Sider they are regularly underpowered, and wanting more requires Strain and a Destiny point... It comes down to strain management, and they have a lower Strain Threshold and Light Side Destiny at the beginning of the session due to Morality below 30.

Star Wars from the very beginning has been a fairy tale set in space, with very "black and white" fairy tale sense of morality.

Ever since WEG published the first edition of their D6 Star Wars RPG, Force users have been held to a higher standard in terms of their actions, with the consequences being far harsher than any other Star Wars RPG out there; there was a point in that system's life span that you could lose your character on your second notable dark side action simply due to the roll of a D6, and using the Force for direct offensive actions at all was a general no-no, but cutting somebody down with a lightsaber or using a blaster in the midst of a fight was just fine.

Using the Force to slam an opponent that's trying to harm you into a wall is quick and sudden, and by the time the target can register what's happening, they've already been bounced off the wall. Lifting that person several meters into the air then letting them plummet back to the ground isn't quick or sudden, and the target can process what's going to happen before it does, making that a tactic of intimidation, and thus worth Conflict because it was excessive force. Maybe not as much as outright murder since the target was a threat, but as the GM I would probably assign 3 or 4 points of Conflict to the PC for doing the "lift and drop" as opposed to a quicker, less brutal Force slam. If the target were an innocent, both approaches would earn Conflict, but the "lift and drop" would earn a couple points more at the very least.

Running an innocent person through with a lightsaber is worth plenty of Conflict, because it's murder, even if the Force wasn't involved. Running an enemy soldier that's shooting at you and your buddies through with a lightsaber is fine, because you're operating in self-defense. If you then take time to chop up the body of that now-dead soldier, then that's going to net you Conflict, because you're going past the degree of force required to negate the immediate threat. Maybe not a whole lot, but at my table you're going to earn at least some Conflict for it.

The Jedi approach is to use as little direct force to resolve a problem as possible, because it's their intent to stay in balance with the Force as much as posssible. If diplomacy and negotiation fall through, then you break out the lightsaber and Force powers, but even then you use just enough power to defeat the enemy. It's very much the same approach that Spider-Man in the comic books applies; he's strong enough that a quick jab from him could kill your average street thug, so he restrains himself to applying just enough of his strength to knock the guy out, and only breaks out his full strength when dealing with members of his rogues' gallery that can withstand that kind of punishment.

Consider Obi-Wan's actions in the cantina in ANH; he makes two quick strikes, taking out the two thugs that were previously harassing Luke for no reason and had drawn blasters even after Kenobi tried to talk them down with offers of a free drink, and after a moment's pause to see if anyone else was going to jump in... and then switched off his lightsaber. As an experienced Jedi Master, Kenobi had plenty of other ways of dealing with those two goons that would have been far worse, but opted for the solution that was quick, decisive, and ended the confrontation without any bystanders getting hurt, with the added bonus of letting the other patrons that he and the farmboy were to be messed with at that patron's peril, thus preventing any further altercations before they happened.

It's not about the morality or the standards -- it's about actions being treated differently depending on the tools being used to do them.

Killing someone for greed or jealousy is the same no matter which tool is used... killing someone to defend an innocent life is the same no matter which tool is used... and dead is dead, regardless of method.

In some respects I agree with you on a personal real life level.

In Star Wars tho, it very much matters if you are shooting someone with a blaster; or drawing on a twisted and broken part of the Force that makes up all of existence, to hurl bolts of warped lightening bolts (a physical manifestation of your own hate, anger, and personal despair) to melt your enemies.

In the same regard if you use the less twisted part of that power to toss a guy into a wall whom is coming after you, the act itself is reflective and could be defensive in nature. To lift a man a ways up, multiple rnds even, displays a premeditated, unnecessarily cruel desire to make a point. Intent will be factored into my game, the majority of conflict will be from the end result.. but intent can definitely add a couple points.

In my old WEG sw game, the PCs had to choose between getting the bad guy and letting a cap ship crash into Coruscant. They chose to get the bad guy. In the final fight the bad guys minion said that they had perfectly calculated the trajectory and it would crash into the Jedi Temple. Our pirate PC said that the bad guys were too dumb to accurately plot such a trajectory and bet him 5 credits it would miss. The minion laughed, agreed and said something akin to "you won't live long enough to collect"

After they killed the bad guy and rounded up all the minion prisoners and were dropping down in escape pods. I gave one the most vivid descriptions I have ever delivered of carnage and death as a corvette crashed through multiple buildings on a city planet. As I finished the description there was at least a full 15 seconds of silence as my 6 PCs contemplated what they had done.. then the pirate PC (my big sister) jumped up and pointed at me and yelled at the top of her lungs "YOU OWE ME 5 credits!!"

She wasn't even the one who made the final call to go after the bad guy, and I doubled her dark side points just for that.. the end result and methods were the same, but morality in Star Wars is a personal struggle much more then a set of commandments.

That really doesn't counter my position. They made a choice that they knew would result in carnage and devastation, for the sake of getting an antagonist... unless that antagonist was a clear and present threat to do something even worse if they didn't immediately stop him, that was the wrong choice.

The issues there relate to motive, intent, and outcome, and are entirely tangential to whether bashing someone's head in with a hammer or throwing them out an airlock or zapping them with your space magic is "more wrong".

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

Why do you keep leaving out the word unnecessary?

Because it's largely irrelevant, and the differences in "necessity" are being exaggerated.

Yes. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you.

What makes an action wrong is:

1) the outcome -- what effect does it have on other people?

2) the motive/intent -- why did you do it?

So far, your explanations keep coming down to "it's wrong because it's wrong". If the motive is the same and the outcome is the same, where's the difference? Other than in the faerie tale "just so" "morality"?

Star Wars from the very beginning has been a fairy tale set in space, with very "black and white" fairy tale sense of morality.

Ever since WEG published the first edition of their D6 Star Wars RPG, Force users have been held to a higher standard in terms of their actions, with the consequences being far harsher than any other Star Wars RPG out there; there was a point in that system's life span that you could lose your character on your second notable dark side action simply due to the roll of a D6, and using the Force for direct offensive actions at all was a general no-no, but cutting somebody down with a lightsaber or using a blaster in the midst of a fight was just fine.

Using the Force to slam an opponent that's trying to harm you into a wall is quick and sudden, and by the time the target can register what's happening, they've already been bounced off the wall. Lifting that person several meters into the air then letting them plummet back to the ground isn't quick or sudden, and the target can process what's going to happen before it does, making that a tactic of intimidation, and thus worth Conflict because it was excessive force. Maybe not as much as outright murder since the target was a threat, but as the GM I would probably assign 3 or 4 points of Conflict to the PC for doing the "lift and drop" as opposed to a quicker, less brutal Force slam. If the target were an innocent, both approaches would earn Conflict, but the "lift and drop" would earn a couple points more at the very least.

Running an innocent person through with a lightsaber is worth plenty of Conflict, because it's murder, even if the Force wasn't involved. Running an enemy soldier that's shooting at you and your buddies through with a lightsaber is fine, because you're operating in self-defense. If you then take time to chop up the body of that now-dead soldier, then that's going to net you Conflict, because you're going past the degree of force required to negate the immediate threat. Maybe not a whole lot, but at my table you're going to earn at least some Conflict for it.

The Jedi approach is to use as little direct force to resolve a problem as possible, because it's their intent to stay in balance with the Force as much as posssible. If diplomacy and negotiation fall through, then you break out the lightsaber and Force powers, but even then you use just enough power to defeat the enemy. It's very much the same approach that Spider-Man in the comic books applies; he's strong enough that a quick jab from him could kill your average street thug, so he restrains himself to applying just enough of his strength to knock the guy out, and only breaks out his full strength when dealing with members of his rogues' gallery that can withstand that kind of punishment.

Consider Obi-Wan's actions in the cantina in ANH; he makes two quick strikes, taking out the two thugs that were previously harassing Luke for no reason and had drawn blasters even after Kenobi tried to talk them down with offers of a free drink, and after a moment's pause to see if anyone else was going to jump in... and then switched off his lightsaber. As an experienced Jedi Master, Kenobi had plenty of other ways of dealing with those two goons that would have been far worse, but opted for the solution that was quick, decisive, and ended the confrontation without any bystanders getting hurt, with the added bonus of letting the other patrons that he and the farmboy were to be messed with at that patron's peril, thus preventing any further altercations before they happened.

And yet we have the protagonist Han, who shot first, and was in it for the money, and worked for some of the worst gangster scum in the galaxy, and dithered over joining in the attack on the Death Star until the last minute... hardly "faerie tale" material.

For all that I liked WEG's d6 Star Wars, their Force rules didn't scale well, and their dark side rules were grossly simplistic, almost childish... to the point that I never played a force-user in that system.

There are many situations in real life where "just enough force" will just get you (or your "troops") killed for no good reason. It's not really a great universal philosophy to operate under.

Deliberately harming innocents is wrong because of the effect and the intent.

Kenobi maims at least one of them (there are some frame-by-frame breakdowns that show some funny editing/production mistakes in that scene as originally shown), and I've seen people argue that he should have received a dark side point for that in the old WEG "candyland" morality.

It's shown repeatedly (in the movies and TCW, probably Rebels) that Force telekinesis takes a deal of focus and effort on man-sized objects; even Yoda had to focus all of his attention on it to save Anakin and Obi-Wan. To actually lift someone up to a height where a drop would be fatal (especially 200 ft; a 6-10 ft drop has potentially fatal consequences on the average human) is all kinds of unnecessary; even if you're acting in self-defense, to actually go through the effort to stop, focus, grab the guy, lift him to an appropriately lethal height, then drop him is overkill. You obviously intend to kill him, so just spare yourself the trouble and hit him with a wrench. And I'm pretty sure 'self-defense' operates under 'just enough force needed'; it's one thing to shoot a home invader in self defense; another if you take the effort to subdue the invader and drag him to your indoor gallows.

So an upstanding Jedi (or Jedi wannabe) killing somebody out of necessity with a lightsaber is one thing -- sudden and quick.

"I had to cut him down, he was going to shoot the hostage."

"I had to subdue him with my telekinetic mind powers, lift him several stories into the air, then drop him to his death, he was going to shoot the hostage." "Couldn't you have, I dunno, just subdued him?"

I have to wonder, during the hypothetical Telekenetic "drag and drop", if the Force User could sense the victims emotional state as well. Obviously not mechanically (activating sense would also take an action), but narratively. Would they sense the sudden fear of the victim as they realize they're about to fall to their death, and there's nothing they can do to prevent it?

It's shown repeatedly (in the movies and TCW, probably Rebels) that Force telekinesis takes a deal of focus and effort on man-sized objects; even Yoda had to focus all of his attention on it to save Anakin and Obi-Wan. To actually lift someone up to a height where a drop would be fatal (especially 200 ft; a 6-10 ft drop has potentially fatal consequences on the average human) is all kinds of unnecessary; even if you're acting in self-defense, to actually go through the effort to stop, focus, grab the guy, lift him to an appropriately lethal height, then drop him is overkill. You obviously intend to kill him, so just spare yourself the trouble and hit him with a wrench. And I'm pretty sure 'self-defense' operates under 'just enough force needed'; it's one thing to shoot a home invader in self defense; another if you take the effort to subdue the invader and drag him to your indoor gallows.

So an upstanding Jedi (or Jedi wannabe) killing somebody out of necessity with a lightsaber is one thing -- sudden and quick.

"I had to cut him down, he was going to shoot the hostage."

"I had to subdue him with my telekinetic mind powers, lift him several stories into the air, then drop him to his death, he was going to shoot the hostage." "Couldn't you have, I dunno, just subdued him?"

Depends... did he keep trying to shoot the hostages or me/my team?

Edit - example of how twisted up the Jedi morality of "never act out of emotion" gets... Jedi sees someone about to shoot up a repulsorbus full of kids to cover an escape, and this makes him instantly angry. His anger channels into a massive Force push that slams the scumbag into a wall across the street, knocking them out.

According to the Jedi, being angry that someone was about to shoot up a bus full of kids, and turning that anger into saving the kids and catching the gunman, is a bad thing.

Well, every instance I can think of in Star Wars that involves grabbing somebody telekinetically immobilizes them as well.

Depends... did he keep trying to shoot the hostages or me/my team?

Edit - example of how twisted up the Jedi morality of "never act out of emotion" gets... Jedi sees someone about to shoot up a repulsorbus full of kids to cover an escape, and this makes him instantly angry. His anger channels into a massive Force push that slams the scumbag into a wall across the street, knocking them out.

According to the Jedi, being angry that someone was about to shoot up a bus full of kids, and turning that anger into saving the kids and catching the gunman, is a bad thing.

Yep. You're right. That is how Jedi morality works. It seems a little off by our real world method of looking at things, but Jedi have been built up to be the weird almost otherworldly monks of Star Wars. I'm not saying it's right that people in this universe need to struggle with very human responses to situations, but it is the way of the Force and it makes one hell of a story.

As much as I enjoy debating the finer points of good and evil, I am going to formally bow out of such discussions on this particular post from here on out. Start another thread on it and I'll dive back in. But in this case it's not actually relating to my original post overly much.

I suppose outside of directly opposing the PCs with dangerous threats (Empire, Inquisitors, bounty hunters and the like), the thing that limits Force use the most is how much the players are willing to roleplay. Are they willing to roleplay 'with great power comes great responsibility'?

One possibility you could try (and one I'm willing to use, as I am a fan) is Timothy Zahn's idea he presented in Spectre of the Past: grand displays of the Force -- even with good intentions -- can lead to the dark side. So maybe start giving conflict if a player starts using powers at every turn. We see a lot of Force use by the Jedi in TCW because it's a high action setting, but when out of that environment, I remember a few of the masters having a lot of restraint, even in scenarios, if ported to the game, one could say it would have been solved a lot faster and without any harm done had he used power X there.

I suppose outside of directly opposing the PCs with dangerous threats (Empire, Inquisitors, bounty hunters and the like), the thing that limits Force use the most is how much the players are willing to roleplay. Are they willing to roleplay 'with great power comes great responsibility'?

One possibility you could try (and one I'm willing to use, as I am a fan) is Timothy Zahn's idea he presented in Spectre of the Past: grand displays of the Force -- even with good intentions -- can lead to the dark side. So maybe start giving conflict if a player starts using powers at every turn. We see a lot of Force use by the Jedi in TCW because it's a high action setting, but when out of that environment, I remember a few of the masters having a lot of restraint, even in scenarios, if ported to the game, one could say it would have been solved a lot faster and without any harm done had he used power X there.

You might be on to something there. I was planning on having one of the holocrons from the box set go with them.. mainly so I had a way to teach them new force powers and drop little nuggets of Jedi wisdom. Maybe I could have him take a more proactive role. He doesn't just want a bunch of good intentioned force users, he wants capital J Jedi.

"Sure you can solve all your problems with the force, but you wouldn't LEARN anything. Dooku had that problem.. maybe before I teach you how to Suppress the Force in your enemies, you must prove that you yourself can solve problems without it."

Don't get me wrong, I don't plan on completely "nerfing" force aware folks. I have great hopes for some scenes when they are powerful force users with a Rebel army at their back facing down an imperial army in front. I'm just more comfortable if I have a handful of "control valves" till I'm more experienced with F&D.

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

Why do you keep leaving out the word unnecessary?

Because it's largely irrelevant, and the differences in "necessity" are being exaggerated.

Except that even in our world the use of excessive force is punished. It kind of bothers me that you don't understand the difference between necessary force and excessive force.

Yep. You're right. That is how Jedi morality works. It seems a little off by our real world method of looking at things, but Jedi have been built up to be the weird almost otherworldly monks of Star Wars. I'm not saying it's right that people in this universe need to struggle with very human responses to situations, but it is the way of the Force and it makes one hell of a story.

As much as I enjoy debating the finer points of good and evil, I am going to formally bow out of such discussions on this particular post from here on out. Start another thread on it and I'll dive back in. But in this case it's not actually relating to my original post overly much.

Understood - sorry for the derail.

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

Why do you keep leaving out the word unnecessary?

Because it's largely irrelevant, and the differences in "necessity" are being exaggerated.

Except that even in our world the use of excessive force is punished. It kind of bothers me that you don't understand the difference between necessary force and excessive force.

Except that the "special Jedi morality" proponents are not noting excessive force, they're quibling over the morality of one weapon vs another in an otherwise identical situation where lethal force is justified.

Because slamming them into the wall doesn't cause them fear?

Why do you keep leaving out the word unnecessary?

Because it's largely irrelevant, and the differences in "necessity" are being exaggerated.

Except that even in our world the use of excessive force is punished. It kind of bothers me that you don't understand the difference between necessary force and excessive force.

Except that the "special Jedi morality" proponents are not noting excessive force, they're quibling over the morality of one weapon vs another in an otherwise identical situation where lethal force is justified.

No we are not. You keep missing the part where we explain using the force in one way would not have conflict but using the same force power in a different way would because it is excessive. I don't know why this concept is difficult for you.

Yes. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you.

What makes an action wrong is:

1) the outcome -- what effect does it have on other people?

2) the motive/intent -- why did you do it?

So far, your explanations keep coming down to "it's wrong because it's wrong". If the motive is the same and the outcome is the same, where's the difference? Other than in the faerie tale "just so" "morality"?

You obviously don't understand the basic of storytelling here. I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or not but I've explained why it's wrong several times. Either accept it or don't. But I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you over and over again the basics of storytelling and Star Wars narrative structure.

Star Wars does not appear to be the game for you since you have trouble grasping it's basic story structure.

So basically if I want to toss someone off a roof or murder them as long as I don't use the force I'm not using the dark side and I'm a paragon of virtue as far as its concerned?

How ever if in self defense I shove a dude off a roof or knock them out by choking them by using the force I'm suddenly an evil monster?

So basically if I want to toss someone off a roof or murder them as long as I don't use the force I'm not using the dark side and I'm a paragon of virtue as far as its concerned?

How ever if in self defense I shove a dude off a roof or knock them out by choking them by using the force I'm suddenly an evil monster?

No, you seem to also be purposely missing the point.

So basically if I want to toss someone off a roof or murder them as long as I don't use the force I'm not using the dark side and I'm a paragon of virtue as far as its concerned?

How ever if in self defense I shove a dude off a roof or knock them out by choking them by using the force I'm suddenly an evil monster?

Not quite. A non force user can throw someone off a roof at no personal cost. A Force User would gain conflict whether they used the force or not. It's the excess suffering that is supposed to be the wrong action, not the always the actual act of killing. Yet Murder is bad too, so your supposed to only engage in violence when it's the last resort and then use the quickest method possible with the least pain and suffering.

I'll openly admit this is the only SWRPG I have ever played, and know almost nothing of Legends. The Moveis and TCW did not prepare me for the Morality system in this game. The CRB didn't IMHO explain the expected code enough either, I had initially thought it much closer the MaxK's interpretation. It's taken over a year of following this forum for my to understand the Moral Code that prevails through the expected Star Wars Universe.

I'm comfortable now with what the game expects of Morality, but I still begrudge it for being different to a more real world moral opinion. I wish the system had done a better to outline the differences. It seems to expect that people who buy the books are deeply steeped in the SW Universe already. It just doesn't reconcile immediately with the Movies.

All that aside its a happy compromise because Light Side users can still be involved in combat, making the entire party able to contribute to every encounter. On top of that the Morality Bar is low enough for there to be quite a bit of headroom for differing PC/NPC Moral opinions. A character could absolutely be against all violence and only seek peaceful resolution without contradicting the Lightside. And on the flip side a PC who's a Force Using Murder Hobo falls to the Dark Side no mater your interpretation of the system. The way things are just allows a few more character options.

Sorry for the long post!