One of my players asked today how he would like to use his Misdirect power to make himself "invisible"to an enemy, then sneak up behind the enemy and "execute" him.

I explained that as a "Jedi" character this is not how the power is intended to be used by a Lightside character, and that this would bring about quite a bit of conflict. He was very confused by this as he sees it as perfectly acceptable to use misdirect as a combat modification ability rather than anything else.

Can you guys please tell me if i'm being to harsh on the player or if i'm indeed correct and he's being overly "Darkside" with his thinking.

If he is directly murdering an enemy that poses no immediate threat to him, or murdering someone because they are in his way rather than negotiate, instant 10 conflict.

Killing someone outright is not the moral way to go about things, if anything it is the quick and easy path. The harder path would be bribing him (tiny conflict), avoiding him entirely, or simply convincing him to surrender or otherwise leave. It's a bit like the move power...sure, the most effective way to use it, is to lift someone up very high, and then let them plummet to their death...do that and its insta 10 conflict, why? Because you are killing someone in an extremely horrific way that causes them to suffer in their last few moments...if that isn't darkside I don't know what is.

It does depend on the circumstance, maybe explain what is going on overall?

Killing in self defense will cause conflict, not much, I'd probably say 1 for every 2 enemies killed in the encounter (with a minion group counting as one) since there was no effort to end the fighting or bloodshed.

How about sneak up and disable? It's the whole murder thing that is the issue in my eyes.

Only if this was done as the last choice or as a "no time for anything else" move to stop the immediately impending death of innocents, or something along those lines, would it ever even be debateably acceptable for a Jedi. Killing what amounts to an utterly helpless foe strictly for convenience and without some larger extenuating motivation, it's also a pretty "darkside" move, and for me to say that, you know it's "darkside".

Unless they're acting in self defence or the defence of others that's definitely the darkside they're calling upon.

If they question this ask them if you can sneak up on them undetected wouldn't that also mean you can knock them out?

Unless they have no choice but to act they need to remember the darkside is supposed to be the easier route, the Jedi however have to adhere to a better standard they fell because they lost sight of that.

However it's how they deal with that problem is what makes or breaks a Jedi so what side of the fence will you decide your character will stand?

Is this player's character a Jedi? Or are they a murder-hobo with a lightsaber? If they are a Jedi, they probably shouldn't be murdering people. Get a stunsaber. They exist, as training sabers and one of the new crystals in KtP.

One of my players asked today how he would like to use his Misdirect power to make himself "invisible"to an enemy, then sneak up behind the enemy and "execute" him.

I explained that as a "Jedi" character this is not how the power is intended to be used by a Lightside character, and that this would bring about quite a bit of conflict. He was very confused by this as he sees it as perfectly acceptable to use misdirect as a combat modification ability rather than anything else.

Can you guys please tell me if i'm being to harsh on the player or if i'm indeed correct and he's being overly "Darkside" with his thinking.

Too many variables, please provide additional info.

The Jedi are certainly goody-goodies, but not lawful stupid. While I'd consider applying some conflict to this maneuver, how much (if any) is highly dependent on the exact scenario. Sneaking up and killing a rent-a-cop is different than a stormtrooper is different than a security droid....

One of my players asked today how he would like to use his Misdirect power to make himself "invisible"to an enemy, then sneak up behind the enemy and "execute" him.

Sounds pretty Sithy to me. Didn't he ever hear that phrase: "A Jedi uses his powers for knowledge and defense. Never for attack."

The point of using Misdirect for Jedi is to be able to act without being detected: disable the bomb while the terrorists are guarding the perimeter; have a private conversation with a politician who needs to rethink his ways; infiltrate and rescue a prisoner...

There's a nice test to see if your player really wants to run a Jedi (in the iconic sense), or just wants to wave a lightsaber: ask them if they'd be willing to play a Jedi if they had no lightsaber and no Force powers. If yes, they have the right mindset. If no, they're basically in it for the power and ego.

One of my players asked today how he would like to use his Misdirect power to make himself "invisible"to an enemy, then sneak up behind the enemy and "execute" him.

Sounds pretty Sithy to me. Didn't he ever hear that phrase: "A Jedi uses his powers for knowledge and defense. Never for attack."

The point of using Misdirect for Jedi is to be able to act without being detected: disable the bomb while the terrorists are guarding the perimeter; have a private conversation with a politician who needs to rethink his ways; infiltrate and rescue a prisoner...

There's a nice test to see if your player really wants to run a Jedi (in the iconic sense), or just wants to wave a lightsaber: ask them if they'd be willing to play a Jedi if they had no lightsaber and no Force powers. If yes, they have the right mindset. If no, they're basically in it for the power and ego.

Indeed -- it sounds a bit like the player doesn't want a Jedi so much as he wants a "cool Force ninja".

(Just going by what we know, obviously I don't know the person.)

Okay, a couple of things.

First the Jedi are extinct and unless this PC has studied to be one they are unlikely to know much about the Jedi code. So lets set aside any judgment or applying a sliding scale when handing out Conflict based on how a "Jedi" would do things.

Second, Conflict isn't Morality it's the game mechanic to determine a level of change along a PC's Morality scale (0-100). The mechanic is there to help limit arguing at the table as to whether or not an action is good or bad within the setting (as opposed to IRL).

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

So what your Player wants to do will accrue 10 Conflict points for the PC based on the recommendations in the CRB regardless of how the Player justifies it, that's how Conflict works. When the Player rolls at the end of the session it represents the result of PC's struggle. If they get a negative result then the PC gave into the Dark Side, their actions were not pure, if the result was positive they followed the Light Side and even though they did questionable things it was ultimately justified by the Force.

If the Player has the PC doing things that generate large amounts of Conflict often then their PC will inevitably fall to the Dark Side. If, however they choose other options that do not generate a lot of Conflict they will rise to the Light Side of the Force.

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

And that would mean that an utter psychopath, who kills in cold blood, in complete calmness, has no risk of falling to the darkside...

Okay, a couple of things.

First the Jedi are extinct and unless this PC has studied to be one they are unlikely to know much about the Jedi code. So lets set aside any judgment or applying a sliding scale when handing out Conflict based on how a "Jedi" would do things.

Second, Conflict isn't Morality it's the game mechanic to determine a level of change along a PC's Morality scale (0-100). The mechanic is there to help limit arguing at the table as to whether or not an action is good or bad within the setting (as opposed to IRL).

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

So what your Player wants to do will accrue 10 Conflict points for the PC based on the recommendations in the CRB regardless of how the Player justifies it, that's how Conflict works. When the Player rolls at the end of the session it represents the result of PC's struggle. If they get a negative result then the PC gave into the Dark Side, their actions were not pure, if the result was positive they followed the Light Side and even though they did questionable things it was ultimately justified by the Force.

If the Player has the PC doing things that generate large amounts of Conflict often then their PC will inevitably fall to the Dark Side. If, however they choose other options that do not generate a lot of Conflict they will rise to the Light Side of the Force.

Sorry I should have stated that my campaign takes place during the time of the JediCivil War just after the Madalorian War.

Give him full murder conflict if unprovoked, give a somewhat lesser amount (6) for defence. To be honest though, it's more the force is being used to exicute more then anything else, in a way that denies them sight until deaths final bite.

I would only apply this particular modifier once per encounter though, I suspect that considering it a desperation tactic to use it mid combat as it's an action to activate.

Explain that despite the conflict, it's unlikely to shift his overall morality unless he dips into merciless options constantly, just remember though that even Jedi have cut off hands with little provocation.

Sorry I should have stated that my campaign takes place during the time of the JediCivil War just after the Madalorian War.

How does the timing or setting affect the central moral question?

Often, even the most extreme examples in the OT didn't involve death. The difference between Luke and Obi to Vader is that neither killed unless they had to; Sure Obi cut Pola's hand off, but it was better then taking his life.

In a one shot I had my group of wandering Jedi noticed that an ambush had been set for us. Citing "I was going to take a leek" I went into the treeline, then snook around behind them while the party grumbled about his weak bladder. Long story short, My ataru striker was able to get engaged with these guys before they knew he was there. Being primitive natives. It would have been quite trival to use the saber of light to cut right through them

But I didn't, I simply loudly announced my presence as the party closed and immediately the native species were set on the back foot and when one went for a blaster it had salvaged off some battle droids, I cut it.

Misdirect is a powerful tool and a PC has countless options, other then merely killing them. That being said, once combat is joined and lives are on the line, it becomes more forgiveable.

As said, you just simply haven't provided enough information. All these judgement calls are subjective.

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

And that would mean that an utter psychopath, who kills in cold blood, in complete calmness, has no risk of falling to the darkside...

I understand your point but the mechanic is designed for PCs that are not psychopaths, no systems functions well at the extremes. In any case what I was trying to convey was that the Conflict mechanic solves the problem for us. Rather than have the discussion at the table as to the morality of any particular situation you just apply Conflict as is recommended in the CRB and let the die roll tell you the PC's inner state. The truth is that any PC that kills as in the OP's example will rack up lots of Conflict and very likely will loose Morality when they do. So unless the Player consistently beats the odds on their Conflict roll they will slide into the Dark Side relatively quick.

Sorry I should have stated that my campaign takes place during the time of the JediCivil War just after the Madalorian War.

I don't think that would make much of a difference.

The Yoda line is part of a speech about understanding a situation before you act. In that context it's not a ban on ever going on the offensive.

As to the specific situation the details really do matter. Is this guard a sentry in a warzone who'll sound the alarm at the first sign of trouble, resulting in the deaths of innocents? If so, and there isn't any other reasonable way to deal with the guy, then the PC's actions are reasonable under the circumstances. (You ARE supposed to take those into account.) If it's the night shift guard at the local convenience store and the character wants to rob the place then yes, it's conflict ahoy.

The Yoda line is part of a speech about understanding a situation before you act. In that context it's not a ban on ever going on the offensive.

As to the specific situation the details really do matter. Is this guard a sentry in a warzone who'll sound the alarm at the first sign of trouble, resulting in the deaths of innocents? If so, and there isn't any other reasonable way to deal with the guy, then the PC's actions are reasonable under the circumstances. (You ARE supposed to take those into account.) If it's the night shift guard at the local convenience store and the character wants to rob the place then yes, it's conflict ahoy.

To quote Obi-Wan, "there are alternatives to fighting."

In the case of the guard, unless he's already attacking you, taking him out is going to generate Conflict, with how depending on what method you use. If you use a lethal option to end that person's life, such as slitting their throat or putting a smoking hole where their heart used to be, then that's going to be much more Conflict than if you'd simply just knocked them out with a stun baton or something of a similar nature.

One thing to be wary of when it comes to "taking circumstances into account" is that this can lead to a lot of rules-lawyering and PCs trying to use "circumstances" to justify what is unjustifiable behavior. This was a constant problem in the prior Star Wars RPGs when it came to Dark Side Points, which were far harsher in consequence than earning Conflict; in D6 and Saga Edition too many Dark Side Points meant you lost your character and the GM got a shiny new villain that knows all the weaknesses of the other characters, while OCR/RCR had your character start suffering ability score drain. Here a player shouldn't be too stressed about earning Conflict, since you generally have to go out of your way to be an utter monster if you want to cross the threshold into being a dark sider before reaching Knight Level XP.

The player has other options like disabling the guard's arm or leg. If he can make an 4 difficulty Discipline check I would allow him to slice the guard's vocal chords to prevent him from speaking. Failure will result in the guard's death and he automatically generates Conflict for murder. I play a Shadow spec Jedi and it's easy to kill someone from behind using stealth. It's too easy, but killing is the last resort if the guard presents a danger to others. It's easier to disable the guard or control him through a grapple to the neck to force compliance.

Personally, I think this player wants to fall to the dark side and play that type of character. I would discuss with the player if this is his plan to allow for a redemption story for him to come back to the light side. Most parties will boot the offending character for failing to live up to legend of the Jedi and would be an excellent opportunity for role playing between the split group. Maybe even allow the fallen Jedi to hunt the rest of the party for failing to live up to his twisted ideals. The goal for the fallen jedi wouldn't be to kill the rest of the party, but to hurt them badly through manipulations and removal of body parts. The good party would be trying to restore sanity to their friend and someone may have to sacrifice themselves to bring the fallen Jedi back to the light side. The story is rich with opportunities and if you have two good players that are willing to work together narratively then you'd have a really memorable game.

I'd compensate the sacrificed character with a new character that the party runs into at the same experience level as the group. This way the new character is already integrated into the crew and to take over when the sacrificed character dies. Try to get the party to develop bounds with each other so when the end comes it creates the needed shock and emotional weight that is required.

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

So what your Player wants to do will accrue 10 Conflict points for the PC based on the recommendations in the CRB regardless of how the Player justifies it, that's how Conflict works. When the Player rolls at the end of the session it represents the result of PC's struggle. If they get a negative result then the PC gave into the Dark Side, their actions were not pure, if the result was positive they followed the Light Side and even though they did questionable things it was ultimately justified by the Force.

If the Player has the PC doing things that generate large amounts of Conflict often then their PC will inevitably fall to the Dark Side. If, however they choose other options that do not generate a lot of Conflict they will rise to the Light Side of the Force.

In fact the Force doesnt care about why you kill.

According to the setting the Force doesn't care that you kill, it cares about your emotional state when doing it. If you kill because or with passion, fear, rage, anger, envy, jealously etc. you are drawing from the Dark Side. If you are calm, at peace, justified in your actions you're drawing from the Light Side. Conflict is the game mechanic that represents this struggle the PC, not the Player, goes through to justify doing bad things. So even if the Player can justify the action the PC is still affected by the Conflict mechanic and gains points to represent their internal struggle to remain calm and justified within the setting.

So what your Player wants to do will accrue 10 Conflict points for the PC based on the recommendations in the CRB regardless of how the Player justifies it, that's how Conflict works. When the Player rolls at the end of the session it represents the result of PC's struggle. If they get a negative result then the PC gave into the Dark Side, their actions were not pure, if the result was positive they followed the Light Side and even though they did questionable things it was ultimately justified by the Force.

If the Player has the PC doing things that generate large amounts of Conflict often then their PC will inevitably fall to the Dark Side. If, however they choose other options that do not generate a lot of Conflict they will rise to the Light Side of the Force.

In fact the Force doesnt care about why you kill.

Huh, yeah, I'm pretty sure if it "cares" at all, it does care about why... or there would be a lot more "dark Jedi" out there. Jedi kill. Sometimes they have to kill a lot.

And if it doesn't care why , but does just care about whether , then it's no more a reliable moral compass than any other supposed compass.

In fact the Force doesnt care about why you kill.

I’ve been thinking about this. A lot.

I’ve come to the conclusion that “The Force” has to care about why, as much or more than anything else, because it is the prime driver for the others — Who, What, Where, When, How, etc….

Motivation is key. Without understanding motivation, nothing else really makes sense.

The why is super important. Why else would the Force help a farm boy blow up a moon sized battle station full of people (all of which couldn't be evil maniacs) ?

The Force is a living entity and depending upon the emotional state and the motivations determines if the use of the Force is light or dark.

Murder, however you pick and pluck and the murderer's motives and state of mind and frame of reference and what not, is still murder.

In the case this guard, it could be a rent-a-cop, it could be a battle-hardened coldhearted dirtbag, murder is murder.

Now, if a character can sneak up on the guard without being detected, but the guard is crucial to moving the plot forward, just knock them out. Hit them with a truncheon, or stun gloves, or inject them with something. If the GM or the player aren't satisfied with rule mechanics that support a silent takedown, make it possible with a triumph or 3-4 advantage on the stealth check, less advantage if they have a sweet tool for it (like chloroform). Then truss up the guard and move on to the next objective. No murder, no conflict, objective accomplished, people saved, whatever. Player wasn't punished for not carrying around a bunch of strain inducing narcotics (but may have been rewarded for it), and they get a reasonable mechanical method of avoiding being a murder-hobo.