I've been running Long Arm of the Hutt for several sessions, and just got some new players, both playing Force-sensitives. The first session with the new folks went really well, and we finished the adventure, probably moving on to a more F&D-style game (2/3 players are Jedi hopefuls, so it makes sense). Of course, I wasn't thinking a lot about Morality while running the game, and one of the players brought it up later. So now I need to figure some things out. LAotH isn't exactly big on moral dilemmas, and I kinda think the Morality roll should come up when there's been some temptation to overcome.

Basically, there were only two points of potential Conflict in the session:

1. While attempting to leave Geonosis, they were ambushed by the Gand Bounty Hunter, who I decided was a Force-Sensitive Findsman. He was after the group because he could sense the Force in several of the characters, and knew he could make good money from the Empire for them. The group initially tried to intimidate him, firing several warning shots with their blaster rifles to chase him off. That didn't work very well, so the Seeker blasted the guy's arm clean off with his very first hit (he's really impressed with his new Geonosian blaster rifle!). I figured that would take the guy out of the fight, even though he had plenty of wounds left. They bandaged his arm stub, called for a medic, and got the heck out of Dodge.

2. While sneaking through the Hutt's palace, they ambushed a Gammorrean and a droid, knocking them out with stun damage. On the one hand, yeah, they resorted to combat pretty quick, and getting stunned is probably really unpleasant. On the other, trying to sneak everyone past without raising the alarm really would not have worked, and they would almost certainly have had to kill some folks to make their escape.


We were pretty impressed with the new guys, being pretty heroic. My buddy is playing an R5 Outlaw Tech, and pointed out that most of the people we've played with would have made the Gand into stew without a second thought.

I'm thinking point #1 should give them a Morality roll. Basically, they're taking a risk leaving him alive, because he doesn't know a lot about them, but he is a loose end that knows they're Force-sensitive. #2 seems like it could give them maybe a point or two of Conflict. The guys are going to have nasty headaches when they come to, but the PC's took pains to leave them alive.

This is my first time dealing with Morality and Conflict in the wild, what do you guys think?

For #2, as you have explained, the path of least resistance involved stunning the droids and the Gammorean. If there was no other way to deal with the problem, then I would not necessarily give out conflict. It is your choice to make, as some GMs are anywhere from light to heavy-handed when it comes to conflict. The litmus test I have created to decide whether or not to give conflict is if the action would make Palpatine evilly chuckle, you should dole out conflict. Also dispense conflict when the PCs act selfishly. As for how much conflict to award for certain actions, there is a sidebar in the FaD Core on pg. 324.

As an example, knowing inaction, lying for personal gain, and resorting to violence as the first solution will all award 1 conflict. Actions like torture and murder dispense 10 or 10+.

Ultimately it is your call, but if you want some examples check pg. 324.

P.S. You might want to talk to your force sensitive players to decide how much conflict you would like to deal out. My players love having there PCs teetering from light to morally ambiguous, therefore I deal out conflict like candy. However some people want to play sterling knights or paladins and do not want much temptation. Both of these preferences are perfectly valid, and you likely know your players well. I would recommend asking your PCs just in case, so you can be on the same page with your party.

I would only use morality for FS PCs, so for the R5 Outlaw tech, I would switch to obligation, if you havent already. When it comes to force users the path to the dark side that has significant effect on their play , not so for specs that are from edge of the empire. Moving on,

I personally prefer to take things in a black/white perspective, the force does not care about motive, . Did one of the FS characters threaten violence at any point, warning shots are a form of coercion, you are threatening the opponent using actions rather than words but it is coercion nonetheless, and I would have called for a coercion roll (the skills description even point out that even indicating a weapon in such a manner is a threat), so according to the core book thats 2 conflict as you are actively using fear (now watch all those Guardian Wardens dreams of paragonship go out the window).

As for point 2 , they went out their way to keep their opponents alive, and in my mind they did what they could to avoid fatal combat, so I would blank that one.

As for getting conflict for leaving the opponent alive this would depend on what the characters know of them, is the person a known murderer that is going to go on and kill people, theb you could argue that they gain conflict because they have left the public in danger, killing him outright could be murder, but tying him up and handing him to responsible authorities might avoid it , in fact it may have been their duty to do so evrn though it delayed or troubled them later in the game , it is these hard choices that make conflict what it is.

In the first scenario, I probably wouldn't assign any Conflct to the Force user PC, as the Gand had proven to be a threat and attempts by the group (who I presume are not Force-sensitive themselves) to dissuade him had failed.

For the second scenario, if the Force user was a willing participant, then I'd say it'd just be 1 Conflict for resorting to violence as the first option.

Bear in mind that a Force user only generates Conflict from the actions of others when those actions would themselves be worth 5 or more Conflict. Hanging around a Wookiee that relies on intimidation and threats to get adversaries to back down won't drive this PC to the dark side, since using intimidation is generally only worth a point (two at most) of Conflict to the one directly doing the initmidation.

And yeah, Morality/Conflict should only be used for PCs that have a Force Rating, as a large part of the system is designed with the idea that PCs will be generating small amounts of Conflict from converting dark side pips to usable Force points when activating Force powers. Without that bit of temptation, a PC is probably going to reach LS Paragon status pretty quickly and not really suffer any loss of capability, something that a Force user PC would due to how much more likely they are to roll dark side when they're Force Rating 1 or 2, and thus needing to decide how badly they need that Force power to go off.

When considering giving out Conflict for violent acts it's important to remember that in regards to Conflict lethal and non lethal are treated the same. IE it doesn't matter if you stunned them or not, what matters is if your resorted to violence of any kind as the first plan of action. So if it was possible for them to sneak past the guards but they decide to forgo stealth in favor of stunning then 1 or 2 Conflict is awarded. Using the stun setting doesn't let you off the hook.

On the flipside .... if the PC's are ambushed combat was brought to them and therefore I wouldn't have awarded them Conflict.

For clarification: The game started as an Edge of the Empire game, with a Bounty Hunter, Gambler and an Astromech Outlaw Tech. It slogged for several sessions, then a couple guys from my D&D group joined, but with Force and Destiny characters, while the Bounty Hunter and the Gambler bowed out. So we're kind of in a little bit of limbo, probably moving over to an F&D campaign.

So yeah, I'm only worried about Morality for the two Jedi hopefuls. In the case of the Gand, I'm using that as my reason of why they would even get to roll for Morality in the first place. In my opinion, you're not really doing the Right Thing unless you're tempted to do the Wrong Thing. It's my job as the GM to throw moral dilemmas at them, and I wasn't very good about it in this first session. Fortunately, the dice gave us a pretty good opportunity.

And for the record, no, I don't think every application of Coercion warrants Conflict. In this case, they started off with Coercion against a guy that was already shooting at them. No Conflict. The adventure in the Core Book has a situation where they PC's see a couple thugs drag a guy into an alley and start beating him. If the PC's ignore it and walk away, they get 1 Conflict. If they go into the alley, crack their knuckles and say, "Time for you fellas to take a hike," the adventure calls for 2 Conflict. I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.

In the second case, they first stunned a droid working on a loading dock, because trying to sneak everyone past it wouldn't work. Then they stunned a Gammorean guard, because he was investigating the loud noise made as the PC's knocked over a bunch of equipment. I'm thinking I'll hit them with 1 Conflict, mostly to put it out there that, "Yes, even Goodie-Two-Shoes will be getting Conflict, and the Road to Paragon will be difficult."

Based on the above, I'd say you've got a pretty good handle on Conflict and Morality.

Your call regarding coercion .however id just like to drawyour attention to the conflict chart on page324 under conflict received 2 -Coercion and threatening with violence. The PC threatens someone with violence, or coerces the person to do his bidding against the persons will.

Coercion relies on fear, fear is definitely a dark side tool. Firing warning shots are essentially trying to scare your opponent into backing down. Id recommend listening to the order 66 podcasts about grey jedi and also Guardians (specifically the section about wardens).

Coercion relies on fear, fear is definitely a dark side tool. Firing warning shots are essentially trying to scare your opponent into backing down. Id recommend listening to the order 66 podcasts about grey jedi and also Guardians (specifically the section about wardens).

Oh, I get it. I just refuse to accept that an Intimidation roll is somehow more Dark Side than a Shoot Him Right In His Stupid Face roll. There's a world of difference between Coercion to get what you want, and Coercion to defuse a violent situation.

Which is why I point you to the order 66 podcast, the example that they had on the grey jedi are episode involved a character, undercover with the ISB beating an innocent to a pulp to save him from being killed. The motive is unimportant its how you conduct yourself. If you follow the canon examples even Yoda realised that the jedi order fell to the dark side (rebels season 2, shroud of darkness) even though the motive for joining the war was for good. The very fact they joined the war was their downfall.

Similarly using fear as a weapon is a dark side path regardless of your motives, this is the very reason baleful gaze gives you auto conflict. This is where the GM can make things interesting by giving no clean cut path. As I said its up to you but I would recommend giving a listen to both order 66 episodes as it was an eye opener for me also

Coercion relies on fear, fear is definitely a dark side tool. Firing warning shots are essentially trying to scare your opponent into backing down. Id recommend listening to the order 66 podcasts about grey jedi and also Guardians (specifically the section about wardens).

Oh, I get it. I just refuse to accept that an Intimidation roll is somehow more Dark Side than a Shoot Him Right In His Stupid Face roll. There's a world of difference between Coercion to get what you want, and Coercion to defuse a violent situation.

Who said it was more dark side than shoot him in the face? Obviously you give out more Conflict if they just shot someone in the face instead of intimidating them. It's a scale from 1 to 10 after all. Just because shooting someone in the face is going to net you more Conflict it doesn't make Intimidating people any less Conflict worthy. Intimidating someone is like a 1 or 2 point hit. Shooting someone in the face is like a 3 or 4 hit.

Also if you want to defuse a violent situation without gaining the Conflict that say Coercion would then you obviously need to use a different skill such as Charm or Negotiation. They opted to use fear and threats to diffuse a violent situation, that's on them and thus the Conflict from that is on them. But they also have two other social skills that can be used that won't gain them Conflict too.

Yes there is a world of difference between Coercion to get what you want and Coercion to diffuse violence but at the core central thing the PC opted to use fear to resolve the situation and that's a Conflict worthy thing. Just because you are doing good doesn't mean you're not gonna gain Conflict from it. And using fear and threat to do good deeds is a perfect example of moving down the path to the darkside via the best of intentions. Which is kinda the point of it anyway.

Personally, I could see instances where one could use Coercion and not earn Conflict. They wouldn't be very common, with one potential instance being a person very calmly explaining that if an NPC continues to pursue a certain course of action (such as continuously harassing the party for a bounty), that it's not going to end well by making it clear just how well-prepared and determined the other PCs are to defend their hunted allies, but offering that if the NPC walks away, then no hard feelings and bygones be bygones and all that. So you're not so much instilling fear as educating the NPC on why coming after you is not a good idea, giving them the option of making a more informed decision about whether they want their ass-to-ear ratio adjusted.

But that's ultimately up to the GM, and TheGrandFalloon's case he felt that Coercion in that case wasn't worth Conflict. I've said multiple times that the Conflict chart is more a series of guidelines than a set of hard-and-fast rules on what does and doesn't generate Conflict, mostly for the fact that there's no way the writers could come up with a Conflict amount for every conceivable hare-brained heinous action that a PC might undertake. But by the same token, it's flexible enough that if the GM feels that a course of action doesn't truly warrant Conflict (or maybe doesn't warrant quite as much Conflict as the chart suggests), then they're free to make that decision. I do stress it should be the GM that makes that decision, as based upon my own experience players will go to great lengths to try and justify unjustifiable actions to avoid penalties such as dark side points in prior Star Wars RPGs.

Regardless of how nicely you couch it , or how nice you phrase it you are still using fear as an asset, which is definitely a dark side path.

Do you think that Palpatine saying to Anakin that everything is okay, that revenge is only natural after what happened in Episode 2. The phrase I would use is 'The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.

If you look at canon fear is a dark side path full stop, using it deliberately is just the start down that slope, if you look at the section on the following page fron the conflict chart it does allow a gm to reduce the conflict cost, but move on another once you get into the section on fear it is clear you are using a dark side weapon

Regardless of how nicely you couch it , or how nice you phrase it you are still using fear as an asset, which is definitely a dark side path.

Do you think that Palpatine saying to Anakin that everything is okay, that revenge is only natural after what happened in Episode 2. The phrase I would use is 'The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.

If you look at canon fear is a dark side path full stop, using it deliberately is just the start down that slope, if you look at the section on the following page fron the conflict chart it does allow a gm to reduce the conflict cost, but move on another once you get into the section on fear it is clear you are using a dark side weapon

Regardless of how nicely you couch it , or how nice you phrase it you are still using fear as an asset, which is definitely a dark side path.

Do you think that Palpatine saying to Anakin that everything is okay, that revenge is only natural after what happened in Episode 2. The phrase I would use is 'The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.

If you look at canon fear is a dark side path full stop, using it deliberately is just the start down that slope, if you look at the section on the following page fron the conflict chart it does allow a gm to reduce the conflict cost, but move on another once you get into the section on fear it is clear you are using a dark side weapon

That's crap. Every police officer uses a bit of fear to maintain order, and most of society is maintained based upon a fear of incurring justified punishment. Your absolute views would indicate that every society promotes the dark side if it does anything to promote order.

I think policing in general would be very different if the dark side were real. I mean it's easy to point out how we as normal people might use fear to maintain order. But we aren't living in the Star Wars universe where using such tactics has spiritual consequences for those who can use the Force. So in the end it's really not the same.

So I was really bad today.

1. I was being held prisoner by an Evil Scientist who was carbonite freezing people to make an army for his masters who are plotting to take over the Galaxy. Most of the group were badly injured by setting off a triple thermal detonator trap attached to a set of laminate armor hidden in a secret panel on the bridge of this station and had been frozen in carbonite. So I convince him to let me go, but I fail to convince him after he unfroze this entire army of possibly enhanced individuals that they might kill him, because you know he's too important. So when the commander enters the room he asks if the guy was authorized to wake him up which of course he wasn't and if I was the guy sent by his Masters to authorize waking him up which I wasn't. I declined to answer and of course the commander shoots him and kills him. I get dinged 5 conflict for not somehow stopping this from happening.

2. Now after throwing the entire contents of the room at this super cyborg evil commander Nemesis 3 I run and get on the elevator thankfully my mostly dead companions are on the elevator one of whom is still out cold, the second is blind from hibernation sickness and the third is just permanently blind because a thermal detonator went off in his face. I convince the super death droids that the guy in charge has been shot and they might want to go help him and we ride the elevator to the floor where our ship is at. So I manage to get to the control station on this floor and try to shut down the tractor beams, weapons and shields so we can escape. I completely fail the computers check to determine how to turn them off, but I triumphantly find the shut down everything button. (You know the big red do not push button) I push it and it starts turning off stuff, (which I have no idea what its turning off except the shields and the tractor beam) I then destroy the control panels so the army doesn't use them to turn on everything again. Unknowningly I turn off the life support, gravity, station keeping drive along with the shields and tractor beams. Which means the station is now being pulled deeper into the gas giant its hidden in. Long story short the entire station falls into the core and gets smashed into itty bitty pieces and I get 15 conflict for something I have no real idea I did, but don't worry I rolled a 10 on my morality check.

So I've dropped 10 morality when all is said and done for letting an evil scientist I couldn't save die and accidently destroying a secret army, its space station which was conducting experiments in carbon freezing unwilling test subjects, mind control and cybernetic enhancements. Now I'm not sure did I get a bargain or was I screwed over by the GM mad that I stopped his evil scheme? (Please note that this station belongs to a group of people who have a giant space ship with a planet destroying super laser that is running around blowing up planets and I just took out as far as I know its army).

The idea of jedi knights and adhering to the light side was akin to living like tibetan monks. I mean, who doesnt raise their voice in anger every now and then. Jedi Knights were supposed to hold themselves to an abnormally high moral standard. A police office does not have to hold himself to the same standards. Jedi were supposed to be monastic, the closest thing in real life to then would be tibetan monks crossed with the martial skills of a samurai. How could a police officer work to that standard, it would be nigh on impossible, but then again a police officer cant restain you with his mind or convinve you to drop a weapon just by making a suggestion either, I suspect that they do not have those weapons in their arsenal.

So I was really bad today.

1. I was being held prisoner by an Evil Scientist who was carbonite freezing people to make an army for his masters who are plotting to take over the Galaxy. Most of the group were badly injured by setting off a triple thermal detonator trap attached to a set of laminate armor hidden in a secret panel on the bridge of this station and had been frozen in carbonite. So I convince him to let me go, but I fail to convince him after he unfroze this entire army of possibly enhanced individuals that they might kill him, because you know he's too important. So when the commander enters the room he asks if the guy was authorized to wake him up which of course he wasn't and if I was the guy sent by his Masters to authorize waking him up which I wasn't. I declined to answer and of course the commander shoots him and kills him. I get dinged 5 conflict for not somehow stopping this from happening.

2. Now after throwing the entire contents of the room at this super cyborg evil commander Nemesis 3 I run and get on the elevator thankfully my mostly dead companions are on the elevator one of whom is still out cold, the second is blind from hibernation sickness and the third is just permanently blind because a thermal detonator went off in his face. I convince the super death droids that the guy in charge has been shot and they might want to go help him and we ride the elevator to the floor where our ship is at. So I manage to get to the control station on this floor and try to shut down the tractor beams, weapons and shields so we can escape. I completely fail the computers check to determine how to turn them off, but I triumphantly find the shut down everything button. (You know the big red do not push button) I push it and it starts turning off stuff, (which I have no idea what its turning off except the shields and the tractor beam) I then destroy the control panels so the army doesn't use them to turn on everything again. Unknowningly I turn off the life support, gravity, station keeping drive along with the shields and tractor beams. Which means the station is now being pulled deeper into the gas giant its hidden in. Long story short the entire station falls into the core and gets smashed into itty bitty pieces and I get 15 conflict for something I have no real idea I did, but don't worry I rolled a 10 on my morality check.

So I've dropped 10 morality when all is said and done for letting an evil scientist I couldn't save die and accidently destroying a secret army, its space station which was conducting experiments in carbon freezing unwilling test subjects, mind control and cybernetic enhancements. Now I'm not sure did I get a bargain or was I screwed over by the GM mad that I stopped his evil scheme? (Please note that this station belongs to a group of people who have a giant space ship with a planet destroying super laser that is running around blowing up planets and I just took out as far as I know its army).

Sounds like a Gm screwing you over its one thing to give a difficult choice another to put you in a no-win scenario.

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

Over time the rolls should average out but if the conflict on average is under 5 then by the law of averages then it should still be progress, albeit slow, towards 100.

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

That's part of the reason I shifted the Morality rolls to the end of each adventure as opposed to each session, especially as the FaD game I'm running over Skype tends to run a little over 3 hours.

Thus far, it's worked out pretty well for our group, as only one PC has climbed to LS Paragon thus far, with another one being close and the third happily being in the middle.

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

That's part of the reason I shifted the Morality rolls to the end of each adventure as opposed to each session, especially as the FaD game I'm running over Skype tends to run a little over 3 hours.

Thus far, it's worked out pretty well for our group, as only one PC has climbed to LS Paragon thus far, with another one being close and the third happily being in the middle.

Very good idea!

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

That's part of the reason I shifted the Morality rolls to the end of each adventure as opposed to each session, especially as the FaD game I'm running over Skype tends to run a little over 3 hours.

Thus far, it's worked out pretty well for our group, as only one PC has climbed to LS Paragon thus far, with another one being close and the third happily being in the middle.

Might just adopt this one myself too

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

That's part of the reason I shifted the Morality rolls to the end of each adventure as opposed to each session, especially as the FaD game I'm running over Skype tends to run a little over 3 hours.

Thus far, it's worked out pretty well for our group, as only one PC has climbed to LS Paragon thus far, with another one being close and the third happily being in the middle.

In addition to this I think it's worth noting that any character who can be described as brazen about his acts of violence should be earning more than 4 Conflict at a time max. I'm hard pressed to think about what kind of circumstances would arise that would result in a brazenly violent person only maxing out at 4 Conflict per session. I'd be awarding closer to 6 for anyone who fit that category.

This is something we have struggled with in my group too. I have 3 force-sensitive PC's in my RPG group I run, out of 8. The guy who is the most brazen and given to acts of violence is the one who is on the verge of lightside paragon because he always rolls lucky on the d10 vs. the conflict he has gained. We never seem to give out more than 4 pts at a time max because circumstance often plays into their favor.

If the guy is prone to violence and murder, especially as an opening act or for intimidation then it does warrant conflict. Push him into conflict with innocent parties that are being manipulated into conflict and it might present a way of punishing a loose sheath.

That being said, if he is only fighting when the situation calls for it there isn't anything wrong with that; Force and Destiny isn't meant to be a criminal trail where one is judged only a jury of 12 as sometimes a player has little choice but to cut loose, it's how they carry themselves in life and whether they exist for themselves or for the life that makes up the force.