Lightside Darkside is an absolute moral system.

The game's system to represent it is anything but that.

I find a group of Storm Troopers hassling a street vendor demanding bribes or they will arrest them. So I try to talk them out of it with influence enhanced charm check I get yay 4 dark side pips. So my I'm trying to be a light side paragon good guy just went out the window, because my dice roll just turned dark not because of any decision I made, but random chance. Random chance is not an absolute morality its random. (Its actually got a 60% chance of coming up dark side so its not even that random). I don't have the successes with out those dark side pips so my I'm trying to be a hero moment was jacked by random chance into me going all darkside, not because I wanted to, but the dice gods demanded it. How is that a good system?

Mean while other character goes screw this and straight up kills them. Takes confict and at the end of the night rolls a 10 while I roll a 1 well **** it. Other dude is rewarded for darkside, but me I just dumped down further on the darkside tree. Not because I wanted to, but because random dice gods were not with me tonight. How is it that this is any less worse then straight up assigning conflict based on actions?

In the scenario given here, it could be easily role-played that in that instance, your PC was so stressed out and worried that they drew on those darker emotions, not being quite at peace with themselves and the Force as they'd like to be. Unless you're a player that's completely lacking in imagination, it's quite simple to narrate why your PC earned Conflict in such situations; while the player themselves may not be sweating bullets about directly confronting a bunch of stormtroopers, the character is probably worried, and likely considering all sorts of "worst case" scenarios should their mind trick gambit fail, or worse backfire hard enough that the stormtroopers turn their attention to the character.

If you watch the "Shroud of Darkness" episode of Rebels, Yoda pretty much confirms that the struggle for a Jedi (and extension any other Force user) to not let their fears and doubts consume them is a life-long struggle that never ends. Yoda even admits to Ezra that he, as wise and knowledgeable Jedi Master that he is, faces the same struggle as Ezra does.

As Kael pointed out, the system is designed so that Conflict isn't anywhere nearly as harsh of a penalty as Dark Side Points were in prior system. The designers have even outright said that it's expected that PCs will earn a few points of Conflict each session simply from using those dark side pips to occasionally fuel their Force powers.

To say nothing of your own BS about how going for directly attacking a bunch of stormtroopers in that instant would be the "better solution" simply because it's less Conflict generated, simply for how narrow of a view you're taking on the situation. Unless the GM is a lazy prig that's not doing their job properly, blatantly attacking a group of stormtroopers isn't going to be as quick and clean as using a mind trick, and is invariably going to have consequences beyond earning Conflict. Using the mind trick averts both immediate violence and likely later violence down the road as nobody's going to be looking for who just butchered a group of stormtroopers; as a GM with that scenario, I'd say the troopers have an open comm line to their HQ and will have the opportunity to call in that somebody is attacking them at their current location. And if the PC attacks with such overwhelming force as to slaughter those stormtroopers in one attack, then that's going to be more than 1 Conflict at my table, possibly 3 or more, to say nothing of the consequences of directly attacking and butchering those stormtroopers in front of eyewitnesses.

Also do remember that the Conflict table is called out as "suggested guidelines" much as the chart in the combat chapter about how to spend Advantage/Triumph/Threat/Despair is called out as "suggested guidelines." In both cases, the GM is advised to make their own decisions, be it how much Advantage/Threat is needed for a particularly secondary result of a skill check, or how much Conflict should be generated for certain actions.

While Star Wars as a setting has an absolute morality, the Conflict/Morality system is set up in such a way that not all crimes are 100% equal, and that the GM can have some leeway. Murder is still murder, but as a GM I'd assign a hell of a lot more than the standard 10 if a PC randomly butchered an innocent child that hadn't done anything to deserve that fate than I would if a PC beheaded a defeated adversary that had been trying to kill them but was no longer an active threat.

I'm not sure that the OP has paid attention to the aspects of Morality, such as Compassion v. Hatred or Justice v. Cruelty. While the overall Force morality is one of good v. evil. the aspects you choose for your characters' struggles fulfill the same purpose as the OP's suggested color/element aspects from MtG.

Having been involved with this game system for as long as I have (I participated in the Edge beta, and everything since), I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm pretty familiar with the systems in place.

What I don't like is that morality is a system which means people play their characters according to the mechanics and not the other way around. I don't like the basic light v dark alignments. Your examples of compassion and hatred or justice and cruelty, I agree, mirror my example of someone being Blue in the color alignments. But it stops there, it doesn't offer insight into much else.

Morality, as presented in this game, is too linear and narrow in scope.

It's a foregone conclusion, though, that debates on the Internet don't change anyone's mind on anything, really. So, as I said in the very first paragraph -- if it's what you prefer, then by all means enjoy.

The biggest thing I would want to change is the mechanical rewards. While I want some incentive to reflect a deep alignment with the force, I dislike the fact it takes a lot of players to a place where all their actions must drive them to the desired point on the spectrum and they get upset if anything pulls them away from either end.

What I don't like is that morality is a system which means people play their characters according to the mechanics and not the other way around. I don't like the basic light v dark alignments. Your examples of compassion and hatred or justice and cruelty, I agree, mirror my example of someone being Blue in the color alignments. But it stops there, it doesn't offer insight into much else.

You should say some people, because my group certainly does not play according to mechanics. We use them as guidelines, but as I said before, there can be incredible nuance if you have creative players. People here seem to generalize a lot and it's fine to say "my group doesn't do X" but to assert everyone does something or believes something because you do, that's unfair and a gross generalization.

Comrade Cosmonaut,

That's a fault of the players you have, not the mechanics. But then, there are players that will metagame the hell out of tiddlywinks if given half a chance.

Much like StarkJunior, I've got a group of players that generally don't base their in-character decisions based upon how much Conflict a course of action will net them. One player did a bit at first, but now she reserves it for when activating Force powers and trying to decide just how badly she needs an effect to occur, or how big she really needs it to be. They just simply act in a way that makes the most sense for their characters in the given scene, and let the dice fall where they may, up to and including Conflict if I as the GM feel it's warranted. The only complaints I've gotten is when a few players felt they actually deserved more Conflict than what I assigned, while not once as a player complained about how a course of action shouldn't have earned Conflict.

Rossbert,

Again, it's an issue of players trying to metagame the system to reach a desired end point.

If the GM is doing their job correctly, then PCs that want to be Light Side Paragons should be facing tough moral choices, and then having to deal with things going rougher for them because the chose to do what was right instead of what was easy. And PCs that are trying to get to Dark Sider status as quickly as possible are (again if the GM is doing their job correctly) going to start earning reputations as untrustworthy and psychotically deranged individuals that only the most dark-hearted of beings (like Vader, the Emperor, Black Sun Vigos, or Jabba the Hutt) would willingly choose to deal with. Much of the entire system's focus, from EotE to FaD, has been on telling a fun and exciting story, not on the PCs becoming super-powerful as quickly as possibly or on being 100% optimized.

We have seen the stories about players refusing the use dark side pipe to use Move to save a life because the life lost was worth LESS TO THEM THAN THEIR FAKE MORALITY POINTS. That is a mechanic that is driving the role playing and this should a role playing driving the mechanic.

This is one reason why I dispense with the Conflict part, and just slide Morality directly. The PC gets no Conflict from using dark pips, unless they don't spend Strain and flip a DP. To me, the penalty of Strain + DP represents the work required to "find the light" and work past the negative influences of the dark side.

This does mean the PC could use dark pips directly--actually choosing to use the dark side--but that would come with a heavy moral burden, and it would allow the GM to paint the PCs actions, especially to any NPC observers, in a particularly negative light. This is the kind of opportunity the dark side looks for, when you're at the brink (no Strain, no DPs). I haven't settled on it yet, but I'm thinking any difficulty pools are upgraded, and any Threat or Despair generated would have additional direct impacts on Morality

I don't like the randomness of the Conflict mechanic, it takes agency away from the player IMHO. PC development such as "you learned a lesson doing that negative thing so your morality goes up", or "the road to hell is paved with the best intentions" should be up to the player, not a die roll. I'd prefer to adjust Morality based directly on a PC's actions, with the caveat that you can't "pay" for a terrible crime by doing a whole bunch of little nice things...IOW, I don't use Morality in a bean-counting way, so any major negative action is going to linger and require equivalent redemption...like a persistent Critical that has trouble healing.

I'm not a fan of your colour scheme, I think it's kind of redundant (and as noted above, too reminiscent of D&D alignment). Morality is just a slider from light to dark, but it doesn't have to say anything about why you're light or dark: that's explained by the strengths and weaknesses, the character's development, and where the events of the campaign take their toll.

Lightside Darkside is an absolute moral system.

The game's system to represent it is anything but that.

I find a group of Storm Troopers hassling a street vendor demanding bribes or they will arrest them. So I try to talk them out of it with influence enhanced charm check I get yay 4 dark side pips. So my I'm trying to be a light side paragon good guy just went out the window, because my dice roll just turned dark not because of any decision I made, but random chance. Random chance is not an absolute morality its random. (Its actually got a 60% chance of coming up dark side so its not even that random). I don't have the successes with out those dark side pips so my I'm trying to be a hero moment was jacked by random chance into me going all darkside, not because I wanted to, but the dice gods demanded it. How is that a good system?

Mean while other character goes screw this and straight up kills them. Takes confict and at the end of the night rolls a 10 while I roll a 1 well **** it. Other dude is rewarded for darkside, but me I just dumped down further on the darkside tree. Not because I wanted to, but because random dice gods were not with me tonight. How is it that this is any less worse then straight up assigning conflict based on actions?

Two points with this.

In this case your character would have the choice of drawing conflict or abstaining from it's use. You are treating it as if you must succeed at any cost, while the morality system dictated that the force wasn't with you; are you going to go against the will of the force to achieve that aim? Is your character even one that is capable of talking a character down usually? As a Jedi with a 1 in presence would still struggle to charm someone even with the force in to as the force is always much more effective in enhancing what a character can already do.

So you fail, the stormtroopers get irritable and tell you to move along, one points a gun in your direction; then you chose to act. You gave them opportunity to turn aside, they didn't listen and/or turn their threat to you. A decisive action is now justifiable. The key thing is that in Edge of the Empire and all the books is that failure is a plot device. Failure shouldn't close any doors to the player but rather open alternative avenues of exploration, just influence would allow you flexibility in succeeding with a possibility of minor conflict. You can succeed but fail yourself which is where a lot of force users that fall become undone while a true paragon would accept this roll result for what it is and go along with the flow of the force.

The guy who just decides to straight up murder people doesn't give peace a chance. He assumes that he is right and those that disagree must be punished, this is very different to a paragons way of thinking and, rightfully so that character would fall rapidly if he chose to act like that for an extensive amount of time.

As also suggested, a character can get away with earning conflict without much moral consequence, a few pips here and there will only slow your journey but not halt it. But if you chose every opportunity to spend dark pips to win all the time then your character will fall, this is fairly accurate to the source material.

What I don't like is that morality is a system which means people play their characters according to the mechanics and not the other way around. I don't like the basic light v dark alignments. Your examples of compassion and hatred or justice and cruelty, I agree, mirror my example of someone being Blue in the color alignments. But it stops there, it doesn't offer insight into much else.

You should say some people, because my group certainly does not play according to mechanics. We use them as guidelines, but as I said before, there can be incredible nuance if you have creative players. People here seem to generalize a lot and it's fine to say "my group doesn't do X" but to assert everyone does something or believes something because you do, that's unfair and a gross generalization.

Oh, wow. I apologize if things came across that way. I assumed we would be speaking in general. I am not a Sith, so I do not deal in absolutes.

What I don't like is that morality is a system which means people play their characters according to the mechanics and not the other way around. I don't like the basic light v dark alignments. Your examples of compassion and hatred or justice and cruelty, I agree, mirror my example of someone being Blue in the color alignments. But it stops there, it doesn't offer insight into much else.

You should say some people, because my group certainly does not play according to mechanics. We use them as guidelines, but as I said before, there can be incredible nuance if you have creative players. People here seem to generalize a lot and it's fine to say "my group doesn't do X" but to assert everyone does something or believes something because you do, that's unfair and a gross generalization.

Oh, wow. I apologize if things came across that way. I assumed we would be speaking in general. I am not a Sith, so I do not deal in absolutes.

Oh, no worries. I'm mostly just frustrated because it seems like every day a new thread pops up about how Morality sucks and needs to be changed. Though, I do appreciate you acknowledging those of us who enjoy the system. Most just ramble on about how everyone is wrong.

Personally I give conflict based on choices not on dark side pips.

My game is set up with a dose of Grey Jedi inspiration. They can use dark side pips up to the amount of Force die they have (1 die=1 opposite pip, 2 die=2 opposite pips etc) with no consequences. These are not Jedi nor are they Sith. They dont operate like Obi Wan or Vader. The black and white isnt as stark. So in my games I allow them to use the dark/light pips in this manner. If they want to use more than that they take strain. Now if they are using Move to save people with dark pips.. cool. If they are using Bind/Choke to remove enemies... again fine. If they are using move to slide a vibroknife into a prisoners eye... conflict. If they are choking a villager for information... conflict. I feel that the rules gave a good starting place and for my games I moved it around how I like. I personally enjoy using Force abilities and being narrative in how I deliver conflict points. Its in what you do and the meaning behind it not how you do it sometimes.

The mechanic provides consequences for using dark force points to activate your powers. Simple enough. albeit a little hard to track

With a name like the Death Star, and especially after the destruction of Alderaan, there's no such thing as a true "innocent" on that station anymore, and "just following orders" doesn't cut it as an excuse for homicide on a horrifically grand scale, especially against a population that had themselves taken no action against you.

I don't remember what book it was in - and it was old canon, so who the hell knows what happened to it - but there were a bunch of people on the Death Star who realized after Alderaan that this was a step too far, and regretting their involvement. Some managed to defect and get off in time, but others were still in the midst of processing what they had done - I seem to recall the "Stand by. . . stand by" Disembodied Voice Guy during the final moments of Yavin was a dude who didn't want to pull the trigger a second time and was stalling to figure out how to not pull the trigger.

To reiterate, with the Conflict earned by using dark side pips, in no place is it ever said that you have to use those pips. You can just as easily let the power fail, simply accepting that the Force was not with you, something that is especially true for those PCs with a Force Rating of 1 or 2; they can feel the Force, but they cannot control it.

Consider that if EotE and AoR are taken as separate games, a Force User can only reach a max Force Rating 2, meaning that for a Force Exile or Force Emergent, their "mastery" of the Force is fairly limited. Luke in ESB is a prime example of Force Rating 2 during his duel with Vader, in that he's struggling to channel his Force abilities properly and only survives past the opening round because Vader was more interested in trying to recruit Luke than to kill him.

It's generally by Force Rating 3 (or what the EotE Beta deemed "novice Jedi Knight" level) that a PC can reliably activate effects which only require 1 or 2 Force points to trigger. The "Force slam" effect that we see used in TPM vs. battle droids is simply Move basic power, a Strength upgrade, and the Control upgrade to hurl objects, and is something that can very easily be accomplished with Force Rating 3 and rarely (if ever) needing to make use of dark side pips. Kenobi's mind trick in ANH is itself Influence and the Control Upgrade to affect thoughts, requiring a single Force point, something that's a piece of cake for an FR3 character (Ben was probably counting on the other troopers not questioning their superior's orders right then and there, so likely didn't need to trigger any Magnitude upgrades to affect the rest of the squad). And in the case of flashier effects that require multiple copies purchased of Range/Strength/Magnitude upgrades, the Jedi in question likely have purchased enough of those upgrades that a single Force point is enough to get the desired effect.

It's a subtle distinction, one perhaps too subtle in that it frequently gets overlooked, especially by players who are used to Jedi types in other Star Wars RPGs (especially the d20 systems) being highly accomplished Force users very quickly. Those with D6 experience are probably more used to the slow build-up that Force users experience, but once that waiting period is done (generally by the time they hit 5D in Force skills) they become incredibly powerful and versatile. Thus far, FFG has managed to keep Force users on a fairly level playing field with their mundane allies from EotE and AoR, with there not really being a point where a FaD character will completely and utterly outshine an EotE/AoR character. Or at least not yet anyway.

For example, two characters could have the same Emotional Strength and Weakness, but how they go about representing those can be totally different. One persons view of Justice may not be the same as another's, just as one person's Recklessness may not be the same as their companions.

I like when people give me an opportunity to post an appropriate comic.

http://www.pvponline.com/comic/2016/03/10/soso-jinks

What I don't like is that morality is a system which means people play their characters according to the mechanics and not the other way around. I don't like the basic light v dark alignments. Your examples of compassion and hatred or justice and cruelty, I agree, mirror my example of someone being Blue in the color alignments. But it stops there, it doesn't offer insight into much else.

That only happens if you let people get off the hook on being creative and integrating what the dice say into the overall story and narrative. But to be fair this particular complaint is pretty much any role playing game ever. As for the dark vs light .... dude ..... this is Star Wars. That is pretty much the point of the story.

Morality, as presented in this game, is too linear and narrow in scope.

No not really. It's only as linear and narrow as you allow it to be. I've described it in numerous ways in much grandeur scope.

It's a foregone conclusion, though, that debates on the Internet don't change anyone's mind on anything, really. So, as I said in the very first paragraph -- if it's what you prefer, then by all means enjoy.

Not true. I've seen plenty of conversations on this forum where minds have been changed. The fact that no one is coming over to your side on this issue doesn't mean that minds can't be changed. Just that you're not providing a real case for why anyone should change their mind on this issue. But it does happen.

I'll never understand why meta gaming is portrayed as somehow being a fault of the system itself as opposed to the players that do it and the GM's that allow it.

So my I'm trying to be a light side paragon good guy just went out the window

Um, you do realize that 4 dark side pips doesn't mean that you turn into a slobbering, hideous monster of ultimate evil, right?

So my I'm trying to be a light side paragon good guy just went out the window

Um, you do realize that 4 dark side pips doesn't mean that you turn into a slobbering, hideous monster of ultimate evil, right?

We talking in or out of game? Because people become angstier versions of The Hulk pretty easily nowadays.

So, as a supporter of the Morality system (also I finally get to play using it instead of run, yay!), I'd just like to say a couple quick things (because I'm a lurker/slow at typing, XD).

Donovan, I think in your answering of Maelora's question, you've quietly swung back to a utilitarian view of morality in star wars instead of the light/dark view you've espoused.

A lie is a lie, killing is killing. Letting your fear rule you will cause you to be selfish, will lead towards the dark side. Now, it can be argued (and you do it well...mad respect) that perhaps Ben was protecting all the people in the crowded bar. Sure, fair. My first reaction is that he's protecting Luke, and only Luke. Why not cut the blasters? Why not push then run (surely movie limitations like Maelora said). As a GM I would absolutely assign conflict for his actions.

And isn't that what morality is even in our world? No deep philosophical discussion here, but a lot of us were raised on the idea that a lie is wrong (generates conflict) but that sometimes you lie to save the jew hiding under your floorboards even if you're a staunch moral absolutist Christian. Then you hope you did the "best" thing in an imperfect situation.

1). I'd assign probably 2-4 conflict for the killing/maiming of the cantina thugs. That 2-4 range would basically me be asking the player, "so, how much conflict do you think this generated? Choose between 2, 3, or 4." Basically, if their heart was in the right place and they did, in that moment, think that the bar was crowded and that innocents might die, sure, take a measly two conflict. If they were indeed more concerned about their own personal safety, then 4 is more appropriate! I think role playing and character choice are both really well served here...but I don't think you can sweep the death it caused away entirely.

2). Sure, I'd totally throw in conflict. Probably a single point, but again, I'd allow the player to take more if they thought it appropriate.

3). This one is difficult, but basically I think of it like PTSD. Did the pilots of the planes that dropped the A-bombs to end WWII suffer conflict? I bet they sure as hell did when they went to sleep that night, and who knows for how many nights after. It doesn't mean they became irredeemable, or that who they were at their core changed, but Luke did a very destructive thing. He was directly responsible for MANY deaths, and likely some innocents (how many prisoners did the Empire have on that thing). So, for a subtly force sensitive Luke, I'd probably give around 10-15 conflict. He might fall from being a paragon for a few sessions, but it wont take that long to climb back, and he'd likely be in a funk regardless (if he didn't have to smile and wave for the camera)!

So there's my unsolicited opinion! You people are great! Don't change!

P.S. Bonus opinion! I'd assign Han like 3-5 conflict for shooting greedo. It's badass, justified, whatever. It's still also easily characterized as a cold blooded murder. Was it right? Was it wrong? He's alive, sure, but maybe sometimes it's better to die with your morality intact than fall to the dark side? Jacen Solo did a lot of bad things for the "right" reason, which I think is my favorite aspect of the temptation of the dark side. So easy to justify, yet so hard to disentangle your personal motivations.

Donovan, I think in your answering of Maelora's question, you've quietly swung back to a utilitarian view of morality in star wars instead of the light/dark view you've espoused.

I think that in many cases, people tend to give the movie characters a free pass in a way they wouldn’t do to a character at the table. That’s not a criticism, the films are often viewed as absolute and many people are emotionally invested in them.

I understand those who want to keep things black and white, but that has little interest for me. The EU tended to get away from this more than the movies. After all, Lucas wasn’t trying to write ‘Platoon in Space’, he was writing a kid’s film (albeit a greatly superior one that worked on other levels), a fast-paced action movie. There was no need for Luke to get all angsty over whoever happened to be on the Death Star when he blew it up. At seven, even at 14, I wouldn’t have comprehended something like ‘Apocalypse Now’ or ‘Full Metal Jacket’.

but what happens when you DON'T make the universe bend over backwards to make sure the protagonists never make any hard decisions? Is destroying the Emperor and Death Star worth the cost of wiping out the Ewoks? Or do you let the chance slip by and pay whatever price in planets that costs? What's the Light Side option, here?

This is pertinent, I think. Angst and soul-searching wouldn’t have worked in a kid’s sci-fi film, but the trade-off for it is that there’s only basic moral choices, in black and white. (I remember I was impressed with Vader’s redemption arc in 1984, believing that a more callow film would simply have the son kill the father off).

However, I’m now 46 and my group is all the same generation. We want something a bit deeper, and that’s only natural. We’ve played games aimed at adults, like Mass Effect and Dragon Age and Fallout and The Witcher, where unexpected consequences and ambiguous moral choices abound. And I don’t think that’s wrong to want that. My own game is unapologetically ‘grindhouse’ but I know of other groups who prefer complexity and don’t want easy choices.

We’re not writing a movie, the only demographic we need cater to is our players, and the beauty of role-playing games is that every table is different. If someone wants to play ‘Game of Thrones in Space’ that’s their choice, regardless of what is or isn’t ‘canon’ this week.

If I ever used numbers, I’d likely do as whafrog does, and just use Morality and not bother with the fiddly, random elements of ‘conflict’. That’s what I did playing Vampire: Masquerade and it worked fine to have immediate, non-random consequences.

I wouldn't want to tell anyone else how to play. I don't think anyone here is really saying 'the system sucks, change it!!!'. For those who want to play as RAw, that's fine; FFG won't be changing their system any time soon.

But for those of us for whom it doesn't work, we should be allowed to discuss it and debate. If you think Morality is fine as is, this may just not be the thread for you.

I'll never understand why meta gaming is portrayed as somehow being a fault of the system itself as opposed to the players that do it and the GM's that allow it.

Probably because those GMs are looking for an excuse rather than trying to actually address and correct the problem.

Granted, there's going to be some degree of meta-gaming in any RPG, but it's just a matter of setting what is an acceptable level for the group (which is going to vary from one group to the next) and sticking to it. Some groups are fine with crazy amounts of metagaming, others prefer to stay "in the moment" and keep metagaming to an absolute minimum.

As for Maelora's questions, I answered those going by the Conflict guidelines presented in the book as though I were a GM handling a player that undertook those actions. And by those guidelines in the situation presented, no Conflict would be awarded unless the GM wanted to be an friggin prick and screw that player over.

Kenobi wasn't being malicious or evil at any point in the films, and is often held up as example of how a proper Jedi should act, even spawning a "What Would Kenobi Do?" meme in terms of how a player should play an actual Jedi Knight as opposed to a quasi-psychic thug with a glow sword. Was he a perfect saint? No, but then few people really are, but that doesn't make him the monster that some people seem to delude themselves into thinking he is. About the only "gain" that Kenobi got out of not revealing the exact truth to Luke in ANH was that he was able to honor his old friend's memory and the good that Anakin had done prior to becoming Vader, as well as giving Luke an ideal to aspire to, one that held true and probably played a key role in Anakin turning from the dark side.

And the cantina scene? I see a hell of a lot of armchair quarterbacking in regards to what he should or should not have done. Maybe some of those folks need to rewatch that scene, because Kenobi didn't have a lot of time to react to a blatant threat not only to himself but possibly to those around him. Plus, it probably would have seemed even stranger for two violent thugs to suddenly turn all peaceable for a few minutes just because an old man politely yet firmly asked them to lower their weapons. The lightsaber could be passed off as him being a fan of an "ancient weapon" who also happened to be quite skilled with it, while also ensuring that nobody else would be quick to pick a fight with this farm boy or his granddad.

>And by those guidelines in the situation presented, no Conflict would be awarded unless the GM wanted to be an friggin prick and screw that player over.

That seems overly harsh. There's wriggle-room, I think. Opinions come into play here. Silent Rip above gives a well-reasoned argument as to why a few conflict points would be possible.

What if Han Solo was a Force-sensitive. Killing Greedo is justified, but is it Conflict-worthy?

Kenobi wasn't being malicious or evil at any point in the films, and is often held up as example of how a proper Jedi should act, even spawning a "What Would Kenobi Do?" meme in terms of how a player should play an actual Jedi Knight as opposed to a quasi-psychic thug with a glow sword.

As I mention, this kind of thinking becomes a meme, so movie characters tend to be a given a free pass. 'If he did it, it's got to be good'.

I don't agree, but I think the whole thing is purely opinion, and that was what I was trying to debate here, see what other people think without it becoming a 'one true way'.

I don't get involved in some threads, because I'm only likely to disagree with them, and I'm not about to tell someone else is wrong when my own opinion differs.

All that said, I think it's best I leave it there.

So.

My solution to this question.

1. Encourage and invite the players to focus on the moralities, to play into them, customise them and personalise them. Their moralities are they flaws and advantages, traits and hubris. It's for them to play into - not for me to use as a sledgehammer. If they players can't manage that, they need to either: 1) change their morality; 2) change how they play the character; or 3) get better at roleplaying, and not playing a manifestation of their ego in the Star Wars universe.
2. I don't tell them when they get conflict. This was decided upon in plenum. I note conflict, they note strain for when they use dsps, I note conflict for that and everything else. So they don't have to think about it and it doesn't come up in discussion so much because I don't warn them or give them the opportunity to start an argument about it during play.