In my campaign we have two force sensitives. One started life as a Doctor and is now a Force Sensitive Emergent. She intends to go the Jedi healer route so basically the party has a super medic.

The other Force sensitive started out as a Smuggler but went into the Force Sensitive Exile career very soon after the campaign started and so is much further along in his force skill development, In fact he is now moving on to the Niman Disciple specialization. He is a Jedi wannabe all the way and is getting there.

The rest of the group has one character who is a Gungan Infiltrator and Scout. This character is, among other things, a bit flamboyant. It is to the point that the party lives in dread of what he is going to say to important friendly allied NPCs. In fact he has gotten their initial contacts off on the wrong foot a couple of times. The Jedi character is now actively considering working on his neglected Influence powers so that he can use it to keep the Gungan PC from saying things that hurt the party as a whole. For instance, hitting the gungan with a massive dose of serenity and calmness so that he doesn't fly off the handle during initial social contacts. Knowing the Gungan's player, he may be all right with this; and he is certainly not the type to let in-game situations affect his friendship with everyone.

I am wondering what the potential for gaining corruption points are for the Jedi character if he starts doing this? I know he is so paranoid about the darkside that he'll rarely, if ever, use a dark force point to generate effects. He'd never do anything to cause permanent harm to the Gungan mentally or physically. Still could he gain corruption for gently removing the free will of the Gungan from time to time?

A complication is that the party also contains a PC droid (a humanoid bodyguard/bounty hunting type) that is now working with them and the rebellion. He also has a tendency to loot, steal and shakedown people if not properly supervised. Obviously Influence is not going to affect him, but he is more easily reasoned with. They may try to get the party's Outlaw Technician to make some subtle adjustments to his personality if they can get away with it.

I'd be hesitant to allow it if all the players weren't in agreement, if at all. If one player were to try it on another without the other's knowledge or approval, then it could cause some problems.

How it plays out in the game, if allowed, would probably depend on how willing the one character is to the influence. If it's unwilling, it would probably be worth conflict -- probably no more than 1 per instance.

Still, it would have to be an opposed check. Probably the Jedi character's Charm vs. the Gungan's Discipline. Threat to inflict strain on the Gungan due to subconsciously resisting the effects, while Threat could have more long-lasting backlashes.

Still a situation I'd discourage, but some ideas.

There are also rules about when using Force powers starts to be resisted by others, and I think "anyone who is a PC" is one of the groups that gets the chance to resist with an opposed check and any involved Force sensitives rolling their Force dice to activate the power. I believe there's also a line that if the GM says someone is too resistant then it doesn't work, period. That way high-level PCs can't tell the Inquisitor nemesis to take a long walk off a short pier and hug an octopus -- literally.

As to Conflict, it depends on why the PC is doing it. From the sounds of things the Jedi PC is doing it to avoid being inconvenienced by the Gungan PC, which is definitely worth Conflict, probably in the five point range. And if the idea to start using Influence to "smooth out" a rough party member was in-character, I probably would have given the Jedi one or two points of Conflict just for thinking of it. However, if the Jedi is doing it because the Gungan is putting himself or others in danger with his actions, that would probably be only worth one to three Conflict itself; if the Gungan recognizes that he gets jittery and asks the Jedi to help keep him calm, no Conflict.

Remember that Conflict comes from a Force user actively working against the goals and methods favored by the Force itself. While you can have subjective morality in your games, the Force doesn't care what a person or group or culture or civilization thinks is right or wrong; it has its own will, and those who work against it get Conflict.

I think it should really be worked out with the player. Many of us have a tendency to get a little weird, and "I try to calm his emotions," can just be code for, "Dude, chill out a little bit." Don't abuse it, let him be a goofball, but most groups need to be reined in on the silliness from time to time.

Of course, be ready for him someday to tell you. "Masta Jedi, yousa acting lika jackass. Pleesa don't embarrass me infronta da duchess!"

have the characters tried talking to the gungan? In-character? The party may want to come to an agreement on what is appropriate.

I appreciate the feedback, these are all good suggestions. It is helpful to see the point of view of those not involved. Yes, they do need to have an in-game, in-character, discussion about this. We game every two weeks and I think that this issue is usually forgotten until it is too late and another social interaction is upon them. I plan to remind them to have this discussion at the start of our next session. Hopefully I can head off any potential friction before it occurs.

The bounty hunter droid is amusing however. He will rescue the unfortunate victims of injustice... and then try to pointedly shakedown a reward for his services.

The RAW provides a mechanism to deal with PvP and NPCvPC effects like this and others such as Charm, Deception, Negotiation etc. so that the affected Player/PC doesn't have to play in a way they don't feel or like and that is Setback and Bonus dice. For every action a PC takes that is counter to the desired effect add a Setback(s) die or add a Bonus(s) to their opponent. It's quick, simple, and doesn't force a Player to do something they don't want to do.

For example: PC A is pissed and wants to kill all the villagers, PC B uses Influence (Successfully winning an Opposed Discipline roll) to calm PC A and tells him not to attack. Player A says F'that my guy is going to go medieval on their butts because reasons, the GM agrees that it's up to the Player to decide what they do so instead applies a number of Setback dice determined by the level of Success of the previous roll to all PC A's Combat actions while they are affected by PC B's Influence.

There are also rules about when using Force powers starts to be resisted by others, and I think "anyone who is a PC" is one of the groups that gets the chance to resist with an opposed check and any involved Force sensitives rolling their Force dice to activate the power. I believe there's also a line that if the GM says someone is too resistant then it doesn't work, period. That way high-level PCs can't tell the Inquisitor nemesis to take a long walk off a short pier and hug an octopus -- literally.

As to Conflict, it depends on why the PC is doing it. From the sounds of things the Jedi PC is doing it to avoid being inconvenienced by the Gungan PC, which is definitely worth Conflict, probably in the five point range. And if the idea to start using Influence to "smooth out" a rough party member was in-character, I probably would have given the Jedi one or two points of Conflict just for thinking of it. However, if the Jedi is doing it because the Gungan is putting himself or others in danger with his actions, that would probably be only worth one to three Conflict itself; if the Gungan recognizes that he gets jittery and asks the Jedi to help keep him calm, no Conflict.

Remember that Conflict comes from a Force user actively working against the goals and methods favored by the Force itself. While you can have subjective morality in your games, the Force doesn't care what a person or group or culture or civilization thinks is right or wrong; it has its own will, and those who work against it get Conflict.

I'm going to disagree with pretty much all of this post. You shouldn't gain Conflict for projecting calmness/serenity. You're not controlling the choices the target makes, you're just putting them into a clearer state of mind to make their choices. That's almost the exact opposite of an action that should generate Conflict.

Aye, in that case the player is trying to avoid an unfavourable outcome as calming a player into not becoming a serial killer is an action the player can't regret.

On the other hand repressing a person from acting an absolute goofball just depends on the situation; I suspect most clients of fringe groups will have a degree of forgiveness toward a PC's more eccentric traits (it should be expected that a lot of PC's lack high galactic eticate, kind of like how someone hiring Boba Fett, Boosk or Dengar wouldn't really be hiring him for his charming personality) but it varies and hence it can be understandable. If the PC uses the force before considering other options however I would definitely assign one conflict for resorting to the force as a primary measure without talking about it and generally I would enforce this hard measure as the force isn't a social crutch that you can use like ADHD medication! XD

There are also rules about when using Force powers starts to be resisted by others, and I think "anyone who is a PC" is one of the groups that gets the chance to resist with an opposed check and any involved Force sensitives rolling their Force dice to activate the power. I believe there's also a line that if the GM says someone is too resistant then it doesn't work, period. That way high-level PCs can't tell the Inquisitor nemesis to take a long walk off a short pier and hug an octopus -- literally.

As to Conflict, it depends on why the PC is doing it. From the sounds of things the Jedi PC is doing it to avoid being inconvenienced by the Gungan PC, which is definitely worth Conflict, probably in the five point range. And if the idea to start using Influence to "smooth out" a rough party member was in-character, I probably would have given the Jedi one or two points of Conflict just for thinking of it. However, if the Jedi is doing it because the Gungan is putting himself or others in danger with his actions, that would probably be only worth one to three Conflict itself; if the Gungan recognizes that he gets jittery and asks the Jedi to help keep him calm, no Conflict.

Remember that Conflict comes from a Force user actively working against the goals and methods favored by the Force itself. While you can have subjective morality in your games, the Force doesn't care what a person or group or culture or civilization thinks is right or wrong; it has its own will, and those who work against it get Conflict.

I'm going to disagree with pretty much all of this post. You shouldn't gain Conflict for projecting calmness/serenity. You're not controlling the choices the target makes, you're just putting them into a clearer state of mind to make their choices. That's almost the exact opposite of an action that should generate Conflict.

I agree with HappyDaze. There should only be conflict generated if the intent of the action is against the will of the Force, and calmness/serenity is not against the will of the Force. An active resister to this effect would suffer strain to remain angry/anxious, but simply calming down a character or influencing them to behave appropriately in social situations is not the path to the dark side of the Force.

A couple movie examples of this:

- Qui Gon Jinn uses the Force to pacify Jar Jar Binks in the bongo, and overdoes it a bit (causing Jar Jar to suffer so much strain that he passed out). This activity didn't concern Obi-Wan in the least, who was much more rule-abiding by comparison to his master.

- Obi-Wan uses the Force to influence a man to stop selling him death sticks (then go home and rethink his life). This activity is not unusual for a Jedi, as it even seeks to improve the life of another. Objectively Obi-Wan didn't have to do this because the death sticks guy was really just being irritating. Still, no conflict here.

The point is, Influence wasn't used to cause harm to come to any of its targets, so no conflict is generated. If Obi-Wan had told the death stick guy to smoke himself to death, there would have been conflict.

As a general GM note though, I do not generally support the idea of using Influence unbidden on other characters. The threat of losing allies due to craziness is simply part of the complexity of the game, and overcoming such social challenges is part of it.

PvP ... if you and your players want that kind of thing, sure... but number 5 on this list would apply here I think. At least around my table (and unless there's an agreement or arrangement involved, usually made before hand.)

PvP ... if you and your players want that kind of thing, sure... but number 5 on this list would apply here I think. At least around my table (and unless there's an agreement or arrangement involved, usually made before hand.)

I agree. If your group can somehow create a Obi Wan vs Anikin on lava moment and everyone is along for the ride more power too you, but 99% of the time it's just one Player screwing with another (or both with each other) so avoid it, discourage it, and if thats not enough DTMFA.

I'm going to disagree with pretty much all of this post. You shouldn't gain Conflict for projecting calmness/serenity. You're not controlling the choices the target makes, you're just putting them into a clearer state of mind to make their choices. That's almost the exact opposite of an action that should generate Conflict.

I agree with HappyDaze. There should only be conflict generated if the intent of the action is against the will of the Force, and calmness/serenity is not against the will of the Force. An active resister to this effect would suffer strain to remain angry/anxious, but simply calming down a character or influencing them to behave appropriately in social situations is not the path to the dark side of the Force.

A couple movie examples of this:

- Qui Gon Jinn uses the Force to pacify Jar Jar Binks in the bongo, and overdoes it a bit (causing Jar Jar to suffer so much strain that he passed out). This activity didn't concern Obi-Wan in the least, who was much more rule-abiding by comparison to his master.

- Obi-Wan uses the Force to influence a man to stop selling him death sticks (then go home and rethink his life). This activity is not unusual for a Jedi, as it even seeks to improve the life of another. Objectively Obi-Wan didn't have to do this because the death sticks guy was really just being irritating. Still, no conflict here.

The point is, Influence wasn't used to cause harm to come to any of its targets, so no conflict is generated. If Obi-Wan had told the death stick guy to smoke himself to death, there would have been conflict.

As a general GM note though, I do not generally support the idea of using Influence unbidden on other characters. The threat of losing allies due to craziness is simply part of the complexity of the game, and overcoming such social challenges is part of it.

I'm totally okay with you guys disagreeing with me, but from my point of view the Jedi are evil intent matters.

If the Jedi's motive is, "This guy would make his point better if he was calm, I'm going to use the Force to even him out" then yes, I agree completely. He shouldn't get conflict. And maybe that's the OP's point and I just missed it. However, if the Jedi's thinking process is, "**** this guy's annoying, I'm going to use the Force to change his personality," then no, that's not a light side perspective and he should gain conflict.

Consider an example: instead of just being a bad negotiator, the Gungan is discovered to be a traitor. The Jedi feels betrayed and sneaks into the Gungan's room to kill him, but overhears a transmission and discovers the Gungan's family is being held hostage. He's being forced to betray the group. The Jedi chooses to help the Gungan free his family instead. I would still give conflict to the Jedi because there was murder in his heart, even though it led to him doing the right thing.

The Jedi character is now actively considering working on his neglected Influence powers so that he can use it to keep the Gungan PC from saying things that hurt the party as a whole.

Unless the Mind Whammied player has FULLY bought into this idea and is onboard, this can only end in disaster, bad feelings and broken friendships in real life. Absolutely, positively under no circumstances would I allow this. Removing player control in this manner will almost certainly open up a pandora's box you don't want to open.

If it's that big of an issue, then everyone needs to talk this out, away from the table. But PVP, even in baby steps like this, is a terrible idea.

Your example doesn't really address the issue. When would calming someone down feed the Dark Side and gather Conflict?

Influence has different degrees.

The basic power being used to calm people or make them happy etc is not usually conflict worthy.

The basic power being used to enrage people or make them scared is usually conflict worthy.

The control skill upgrade isn't usually conflict worthy.

The control Mind **** is completely conflicty no matter how its used. Taking someone's brain and turning it into play dough so they will say or do what ever you want no matter how good your intentions are is always conflict. Hijacking free will is bad. It leads to you turning into the purple man.

That being said using your force powers on other players is bad and should never be done no matter what the reason is unless the other player is cool with it. Even then keeping the Gungan from being Jar Jar by Jedi Mind Tricks is bad and will get the player conflict no matter why or how he is using it. He's treading down the road of good intentions to the dark side...

Unless the Mind Whammied player has FULLY bought into this idea and is onboard, this can only end in disaster, bad feelings and broken friendships in real life. Absolutely, positively under no circumstances would I allow this. Removing player control in this manner will almost certainly open up a pandora's box you don't want to open.

Removing a player's agency is usually a terrible idea anyway. Nobody likes being jerked around on a chain.

I ensure it doesn't happen much even with NPCs doing it, and even then I make certain the player still has some options.

Letting players do that to each other seems a recipe for disaster. This game isn't an MMO - the players should have enough problems without fighting among themselves.

Unless the Mind Whammied player has FULLY bought into this idea and is onboard, this can only end in disaster, bad feelings and broken friendships in real life. Absolutely, positively under no circumstances would I allow this. Removing player control in this manner will almost certainly open up a pandora's box you don't want to open.

Removing a player's agency is usually a terrible idea anyway. Nobody likes being jerked around on a chain.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue.

Whether or not the action would gain Conflict, it's the core issue that one player is using an ability to screw with the free will of another player's character.

Some players are willing to roll with that to a degree, but from my experience most players will get highly offended if a fellow PC puts their character under mind control, even if it's for perfectly valid reasons. Sadly when it comes to mind control type of effects, it's not so much "valid reason" as "I'm screwing around with your character because I can!" Even as a GM, I'm cautious about using mind control effects against the PC, generally saving such things for major BBEGs, and even then such effects are used sparingly.

Was in a D&D 5e game not that long ago (playing the Curse of Strahd adventure) that destructed because one PC decided to hit another PC with a Suggestion spell to make them do something non-fatal but highly embarrassing for incredibly petty reasons. First problem being the GM allowed this to go through (personally, i wouldn't have let the spell be cast given the "rationale" provided for why the act was taken), and the player in question was rightfully pissed that control of her character had effectively been usurped for petty reasons and so that the first player could get his jollies. Over half the group walked out, feeling that if the DM was going to allow something that petty to occur, then we didn't want to know what other BS was he going to allow, especially as he and the first player (long time friends) were not the least bit apologetic about it.

Me personally, I'd just say the effect automatically fails without any dice rolling, especially if the acting PC just springs it as "Yeah, I'm gonna mind trick this PC for reasons" and/or the targeted PC has any degree of objection to the effect occurring, and then have a post-game talk with the offending player about why they felt the need to resort to using a mind whammy on a fellow PC.

I agree with HappyDaze. There should only be conflict generated if the intent of the action is against the will of the Force, and calmness/serenity is not against the will of the Force. An active resister to this effect would suffer strain to remain angry/anxious, but simply calming down a character or influencing them to behave appropriately in social situations is not the path to the dark side of the Force.

I'm totally okay with you guys disagreeing with me, but from my point of view the Jedi are evil intent matters.

It seems to me that we are actually in agreement here.

Consider an example: instead of just being a bad negotiator, the Gungan is discovered to be a traitor. The Jedi feels betrayed and sneaks into the Gungan's room to kill him, but overhears a transmission and discovers the Gungan's family is being held hostage. He's being forced to betray the group. The Jedi chooses to help the Gungan free his family instead. I would still give conflict to the Jedi because there was murder in his heart, even though it led to him doing the right thing.

I agree with you here, too, but this seems to be a vastly different scenario from what OP was describing. My interpretation of OP was, "Jar Jar Binks equivalent is being Jar Jar Binks equivalent and it's making it hard for the crew to be taken seriously. Jedi Exile wants to pull a Qui Gon Jinn and calm the dude down." Again, my personal interpretation.

Influence doesn't remove free will, but it can "influence" the target. Removing emotional extremes does not remove an influenced character's ability to make really bad choices, it just gives them less in-character excuses and it might make them realize "if I do that, it' because I'm trying to screw things up."

Sure, it's taking actions targeting a PC (I won't say against a PC because the power does no harm in this usage). How your group deals with this is dependent upon your group. What is clear is that Conflict is not the way to handle it, because "there is no emotion" is a pretty basic Jedi belief, and the game supports the Jedi beliefs as being right and proper.

Was in a D&D 5e game not that long ago (playing the Curse of Strahd adventure) that destructed because one PC decided to hit another PC with a Suggestion spell to make them do something non-fatal but highly embarrassing for incredibly petty reasons. First problem being the GM allowed this to go through (personally, i wouldn't have let the spell be cast given the "rationale" provided for why the act was taken), and the player in question was rightfully pissed that control of her character had effectively been usurped for petty reasons and so that the first player could get his jollies. Over half the group walked out, feeling that if the DM was going to allow something that petty to occur, then we didn't want to know what other BS was he going to allow, especially as he and the first player (long time friends) were not the least bit apologetic about it.

The only time I can recall the force being used for PVP purposes in my group was a one-time instance, was a clear progression of how both characters would act and had long term lasting effects. One character was a rebel in the IRA, roll a bomb under a crowded bus to kill an important imperial sort sense of the word, and not the clean upstanding rebel that we get in the movies. He was also a little mentally disturbed, coming from a very dark place in his past. One of those dark instances was his IRA cell being sold out to the Imperials by his long time girlfriend, who turned out to be an ISB agent. Yeah, you can imagine he took that well.

Anyway, years later (and well into the campaign), we had to rescue a defector from the Empire. Who was, when all was said and done after the extraction, this long lost girlfriend. In order to keep this terrorist from doing something murderous to the girlfriend (or self destructive to himself) right there on the spot, the Jedi had to pin him with telekinesis until they could get him calmed down enough to be rational again.

And yeah, it took a VERY long time for the trust between those two characters to be built back up. They did eventually, because the Jedi and the Terrorist were really close (and for the good of the game, too), but this condition didnt go away overnight.

Mind you, both players loved that new wrinkle in the game, both players bought into the scene and there was no real life repercussions. But if someone was doing something like that on a weekly basis, or just on a whim because Reasons, I could easily see the player getting pissed in real life. If it was a one-off, vital to the story moment like mine? I'd probably let it unfold. If the Jedi was doing it all the time just because the other character was merely annoying - even if it was only gentle nudging and not full on mind control? I'd tell him to knock that S off.