“A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense, never to attack.” - Master Yoda

So I've got this idea for a conflict rule, largely because I watched the Move power get massively abused in a campaign recently. It goes like this:

Using a Force power to cause wound damage generates 1 Conflict per unsoaked wound inflicted.

Thoughts?

Too much. If it's absolutely needed, I'd make it 1 wound per Move attack made.

I don't have my books right now, but take a look at the base Conflict cost of Harm and Unleash: the Conflict cost of using Move to throw something at someone (or throw someone at something) should not be higher than directly using the Force to attack someone's life force.

Too much. If it's absolutely needed, I'd make it 1 wound per Move attack made.

I don't have my books right now, but take a look at the base Conflict cost of Harm and Unleash: the Conflict cost of using Move to throw something at someone (or throw someone at something) should not be higher than directly using the Force to attack someone's life force.

Except that this imposes the same penalty on all Force powers, not just Move.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, you're right. I think I'll make it one Conflict per attack. Per Wound seems a bit much.

Using a Force power to cause wound damage always generates at least 1 Conflict. Additional Conflict may be generated for more horrific absues of the Force.

I think if anything you might look more at the player's motivation behind the attack they're making or whether they tend to be the aggressor in situations rather than penalizing them for using the powers they have spent xp on.

Also, time for a nerd nitpick. I'll put it in a spoiler because it's lengthy.

I think if anything you might look more at the player's motivation behind the attack they're making or whether they tend to be the aggressor in situations rather than penalizing them for using the powers they have spent xp on.

Also, time for a nerd nitpick. I'll put it in a spoiler because it's lengthy.

Yoda tells Luke "a jedi uses his power for knowledge and defense, never for attack," but it's complete bologna. All Jedi use their power for attack. In fact, not a single lightsaber battle was won in the movies without someone using their passion, their anger, sadness, hatred or some other emotion to fuel their strength.

Maul kills Qui-Gonn which angers Obi-Wan who bisects Maul. Anakin and Obi-Wan get their butts handed to them in Attack of the Clones by an angry Dooku. Yoda fails to defeat Dooku because he stays calm. Anakin comes back and destroys Dooku with his rage. Yoda fails to defeat Sidious because he stays calm. Anakin gets de-limbed by Obi-Wan when Obi-Wan got angry with him. etc... etc..

Jedi were the aggressors in almost every instance. Luke wouldn't have defeated Vader without Vader's taunting pissing him off. The only times anyone decides I'll do the jedi thing and not attack resulted in Obi-Wan dying and Luke nearly being electrocuted to death.

Not to mention the whole "certain point of view" aspect. One could say that attacking an enemy force is done in defense of the innocent/civilian lives that could otherwise be forfeit.

Using force to defend yourself or others is not bad or evil, it's the intent, application, and level of 'force' applied that determines the 'morality' of it.

It seems to me billing a PC Conflict who uses the Force to disable an attacker that was about to murder a bunch of helpless innocents is roundly unfair.

Too heavy handed. Do you hand out conflict for shooting someone in combat? Hitting them with lightsabers in combat? If not why does a Jedi chopping off someone's head get a free pass when that same Jedi could easily use Move to bonk the heads of those two guards together, subduing them without permanent damage gets conflict.

Using force to defend yourself or others is not bad or evil, it's the intent, application, and level of 'force' applied that determines the 'morality' of it.

It seems to me billing a PC Conflict who uses the Force to disable an attacker that was about to murder a bunch of helpless innocents is roundly unfair.

Replying to bold underlined section.

That's why I said to look at the intent of them going against the attacker.

As an example,

Could the PC disable or incapacitate them without using lethal force? If so, why isn't the PC trying to save all life if possible? Is there an ulterior motive behind choosing to attack the other person rather than disarm them? Is that ulterior motive a personal one?

It's like the difference between Anakin disarming Dooku *pun intended* and Anakin executing Dooku. Disarming stopped him from doing anything, they could have taken him into custody and had the Senate put him on trial for his warcrimes. That wouldn't award any conflict points. On the other hand, executing him because you're still angry he cut off your arm a couple years ago and your master is unconscious so you know you can get away with it would definitely award conflict.

With Move specifically:

• throwing/relocating the target away from you, or to a place where they can no longer harm you is no conflict at all
• throwing an aggressive opponent to wound them just enough to take them out of the encounter could be a single conflict but unlikely (resorting to violence if another option was clearly available)
• throwing an opponent who is yet to present as a threat just enough to take them out of the encounter is definitely a point or more (resorting to violence first)
• picking up someone who is aggressive and dropping them off a cliff should be worth a good 6-7 conflict (Unnecessary Cruelty), if they laugh while doing it, or do it to get information then thats 10 conflict (Torture)
• throwing someone off a cliff who has yet to be a threat is straight up Murder, 10+ conflict depending on the circumstances

so there is a very broad spectrum of using the exact same force power, and that hasn't even included the Unnecessary destruction when using the environment as projectiles, or destroying ships/vehicles that could easily have been stopped and only minimally damaged.

I think the idea that you get conflict for resorting to violence first when there's no need or without trying a different option pretty much covers it.

I think the idea that you get conflict for resorting to violence first when there's no need or without trying a different option pretty much covers it.

Pretty much this. I like to think this entry in the chart was a simplified way to cover the OP's concerns.

I think the idea that you get conflict for resorting to violence first when there's no need or without trying a different option pretty much covers it.

Pretty much this. I like to think this entry in the chart was a simplified way to cover the OP's concerns.

And i think as GM's its our job to make sure there are often options for non violent resolution, but those solutions should have long lasting effects, thus making the quick and easy violent solution much more appealing... if only the PC is happy to accept some personal conflict for that.

Also its important to note standing by and watching unnecessary violence is conflict worthy, whether its NPC's or PC's inflicting the violence. Care must be taken to not look like a bugger of a GM (ie DBAD), giving out conflict for witnessing a Legion of Imperials slaughtering helpless innocents is not cool. But noticing a couple of Stormies punching up a dude in an alley is a great way to give your Player something to think about, especially if they are already under time pressure.

Remember hacking someone to kibble with your laser sword is ok (why else would jedi have laser swords). Using your magic powers to do it is bad.

Remember hacking someone to kibble with your laser sword is ok (why else would jedi have laser swords). Using your magic powers to do it is bad.

Actually the jedi developed most of the lightsaber forms to use those things in NON-LETHAL ways. And we have plenty of disarm and non lethal ways to use the light saber in the FaD specs. Killing with a lightsaber is very often conflict worthy. The saber is a defensive tool first and foremost, and it gives you access to parry and reflect, allowing you to take enemy fire for a good amount of time.

There are forms developed either by dark siders or as tool against them which are a lot more aggressive, but the basic premise of jedi lightsaber combat is to not kill your enemies.

Too heavy handed. Do you hand out conflict for shooting someone in combat? Hitting them with lightsabers in combat? If not why does a Jedi chopping off someone's head get a free pass when that same Jedi could easily use Move to bonk the heads of those two guards together, subduing them without permanent damage gets conflict.

"bonk"

I laughed so hard when I read that. You used one of those words that sounds like what it means, and it's the funniest thing I've seen all week.

The problem with OP's suggestion is that you're taking Yoda's words far too literally, when it really boils down to "don't use your powers to go looking for fight."

While there are certain applications of the Force that are inherently dark (Force lightning and Force choke), not all methods of using the Force to deal damage are inherently dark. As much as I enjoyed WEG's d6 Star Wars, one notable flaw with how they had the Force work was that they too took Yoda's advice in ESB much too literally.

As others have said, the Conflict guidelines provided in FaD already cover "violence as the first resort" in that if you attack the opposition without either offering them a chance to stand or them starting the fight, then the PC earns Conflict. Look at Ben Kenobi in ANH when dealing with those two thugs that were harassing Luke. He tries to defuse the situation ("come, let me buy you something"), and only draws his lightsaber after they hurl Luke aside and draw their blasters, making their intent and commitment to violence incredibly clear.

I context of the prequels and how much yoda acknowledges the errors of the old republic jedi order, I would say Yoda meant his words indeed literally. Keep in mind that gaining a few conflict points here and there leads not automatically to the darkside. It just conflict.

But as others have said as well, FaD got this covered in general already as well.

By the way as Kenobi is from the old order, his use of the force and violence is not in line with esb Yoda anyway, even when Kenobi was for sure one of the least violent jedi's of his time, he was still a general in a war against the separatists.

Yoda was also trying to avoid repeating the mistakes made with Anakin in dealing with a fully-grown adult that had already displayed many of the same tendencies, and with very little time to go into detail.

Otherwise, why even bother teaching Luke how to fight in the first place if a Jedi is never supposed to use violence?

at·tack (ə-tăk′)

v. at·tacked , at·tack·ing , at·tacks

v. tr.

To set upon with violent force. T ake aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.

de·fend (dĭ-fĕnd′)

v. de·fend·ed , de·fend·ing , de·fends

v. tr.

1.

To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm: a vaccine to defend the body from infection. To engage in or be

prepared to engage in battle to prevent (a population or area, for example) from being captured or occupied by an

enemy.

The two words and their interpretation's rely on the totality of the circumstances involved in order to know which applies, but they both clearly involve the use of violence.

A rigid view can't be applied, there is no way to prejudge an action and label it with either term before it's occurred without knowing the details of what happened. So to apply a standard before events have even unfolded means the details make no difference, which is unfair.

There's an interesting scene in Episode II, in which Yoda and Dooku duel. I call it interesting, because Yoda has a number of opportunities to use the Force in what you guys call "defense", but opts not to do so. In fact, the only time he attacks Dooku with the Force at all is when he's just returning Dooku's own attack. Each time Dooku throws something at Yoda, the little master just catches it and tosses it aside, when we all know fully well he could have chucked it at his opponent. Why didn't he do that? Why didn't he throw the huge metal fixtures and pieces of concrete at Dooku if he didn't believe those words literally?

Besides... it seems like a lot of worry over Conflict. Conflict isn't falling to the Dark Side. It's just the path toward falling.

Needless to say, it turned out to be a moot point. Even before talking to my players about this, they opted for an Age of Rebellion-based campaign this time with a Duty mechanic.

Yah, and he also smashes two Royal Guard loopie, and throws a repulsor dais at Palpatine in episode 3, so I think your example proves little.

Yah, and he also smashes two Royal Guard loopie, and throws a repulsor dais at Palpatine in episode 3, so I think your example proves little.

In his defense, so far as we know Yoda didn’t kill the Royal Guards, he just knocked them unconscious by slamming them into the wall.

And the Senatorial repulsor disk that Yoda threw is one that Palpatine had thrown at him first, and I think there was reason to believe that it was meant to catch Palpatine off guard and make him deal with something unexpected as opposed to actually killing Palpatine.

Overall, I’m still unclear on the rule that Yoda said and how it should be compared to what he actually did, and how that rule should be applied by other Jedi.

Maybe he was speaking from experience as to his own mistakes in the past, which he had learned from?

I do think that intent matters a great deal. I think it also matters a great deal as to what is the first resort, versus what is the last resort.

But I’m not certain about how that should be construed to be an actual rule to be applied in the game.

Yah, and he also smashes two Royal Guard loopie, and throws a repulsor dais at Palpatine in episode 3, so I think your example proves little.

Besides the issue that prequel Yoda and Yoda after the fall of the republic are very different persons, I don't think that throwing stuff on Palpatine makes really a good point for you. Especially if you consider how much Yoda feared Sidious. No man can stand up always to his own ideals. The wise Yoda of esb might have learned a thing or two over the prequel Yoda, they are afterall decades apart from each other. And Yoda wanted furthermore to make sure that the new Jedi order will not repeat the mistakes of the old order, or at least not soon after its win over Palpatine. .

I'm not getting into the speculation debate. Yoda was using the Force to defend himself and the galaxy from takeover by an evil dark lord of the Sith.

He wouldn't have earned Conflict at my table.

I'm not getting into the speculation debate. Yoda was using the Force to defend himself and the galaxy from takeover by an evil dark lord of the Sith.

He wouldn't have earned Conflict at my table.

He was literally acting out of fear, because he knew already that he would lose, he still had to try, because he had seen what would become of all his Jedi friends. Which is kind of ironic for the man who always preached to his students: "Do or do not, there is no try." Or was it his resolve that he had to try anyway, because he could not let go of the jedi order so easily? (edit) Either way, Yoda knew that there was another way …

Does this remind you of any systems in FaD?

(No real speculations involved in this btw, we have this part of Yoda's prequel story on special request of GL himself as grand final of the clone wars series)