Hello!

Just a simple question that popped up in my mind.

Suppose you have your baseline average character, who has the ethical code and background of a normal, civilised being in the galaxy. Let's say he has to kill someone to save himself. The GM deems this as being worth 15 conflict, because it's the first time he's caused another being's death and is understandably remorseful about it.

Then we have two other characters in a similar situation, them having to take a life. One is a scum, a street thug or maybe even a soldier of the Rebellion. He's a character who has been accustomed to the realities of life and death and might even be willing to kill and die for a dinner or some other, nobler cause. Would you give the same amount of Conflict to the character after killing his first enemy?

The last character is a pacifist. I play a character who accepts hurting others to save lives, but not killing anyone. So cutting an arm off so that a terrorist can't arm the thermal detonator the said terrorist is hold would be okay for that character, but killing the terrorist would not be okay. The pacifist has to take a life in this instance and does it rather than die himself. Would you give the same 15 Conflict that baseline character would get, or maybe more?

This is a thought I've been struggling with a bit. I play and GM (two different stories, players are the same), so I would like to have a rule of thumb for this. I feel that my pacifist should get more Conflict than a guy who kills Imperials as part of the Rebellion, sure. And maybe the "tough guy" character should get less Conflict than the baseline character because of the circumstances, but I feel somewhat uneasy to "reward" characters who are badass or just a bit more evil with less conflict.

Also, should a cause, such as toppling the Imperium, reduce the Conflict that comes from killing beings and stuff like that?

Just wanna hear your input.

Cheers!

Conflict isn't intended to be relative to the individual - the same act under the same circumstances results in the same amount of Conflict. The Force is absolute, even if the d10 roll makes it a bit fickle.

Conflict isn't intended to be relative to the individual - the same act under the same circumstances results in the same amount of Conflict. The Force is absolute, even if the d10 roll makes it a bit fickle.

This!

If it is cold blooded murder, there is no difference in the background. IF it is in a battle where there is no other solution it is, of course, an totally different story!

Right, the Force has rules, and it cares about whether or not you break them, not what you tell yourself at night to help you sleep. Situation matters, as self defense is different from a pre-emptive strike is different from murder, but cause is not. The Force is not interested in arguments about whether or not the ends justify the means, it is interested in how you conduct yourself. If you happen to find yourself in a no-win situation and have to take on some Conflict to make it out alive, well, take your lumps and do better next time. Note that none of the Force traditions in Star Wars get the set of standards by which the Force judges behavior exactly right. Both the Jedi and the Sith get some things right but also make false assumptions and introduce unnecessary rules into the mix.

That being said, if you and your group decide you want to play around more with shades of gray and moral relativity, then you could make the decision to run it differently. In that case, though, I would base the relative conflict on the character's current Morality score, not their personality. The scum with a 70 Morality might say that life is hard and he won't think twice about killing for a payday, but deep down he feels incredibly guilty for every life he takes. Likewise, the pacifist with a 30 Morality might talk a good talk about the sanctity of life, but if it's expedient to take a life (or manipulate someone else into taking a life), they will find it remarkably easy to rationalize.

Right, the Force has rules, and it cares about whether or not you break them, not what you tell yourself at night to help you sleep. Situation matters, as self defense is different from a pre-emptive strike is different from murder, but cause is not. The Force is not interested in arguments about whether or not the ends justify the means, it is interested in how you conduct yourself. If you happen to find yourself in a no-win situation and have to take on some Conflict to make it out alive, well, take your lumps and do better next time. Note that none of the Force traditions in Star Wars get the set of standards by which the Force judges behavior exactly right. Both the Jedi and the Sith get some things right but also make false assumptions and introduce unnecessary rules into the mix.

That being said, if you and your group decide you want to play around more with shades of gray and moral relativity, then you could make the decision to run it differently. In that case, though, I would base the relative conflict on the character's current Morality score, not their personality. The scum with a 70 Morality might say that life is hard and he won't think twice about killing for a payday, but deep down he feels incredibly guilty for every life he takes. Likewise, the pacifist with a 30 Morality might talk a good talk about the sanctity of life, but if it's expedient to take a life (or manipulate someone else into taking a life), they will find it remarkably easy to rationalize.

Absolutely! You need to walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.

The way our table uses Morality, is that it centers on two (or three) things - how you use the Force, and your chosen Emotional Strength and Weakness.

You can potentially induce Conflict any time you use the Force, depending on how you're using it, and the result.

You can potentially induce Conflict any time you are dealing with an issue pertinent to your Emotional Strength/Weakness.

You can also potentially induce Conflict at certain narrative/story junctures, that clearly define/represent your overall philosophy/approach to life/dealing with conflict in your life, or that are otherwise story "markers" or "tests" of general "Morality" (which generally centers on a "do unto others..." reference point)..

You do not necessarily risk inducing Conflict at our table any time you kill someone, especially if you're not using the Force to do it, and if you're in a fire fight. We haven't thought or discussed it much, but to me it has to do with "fairness", giving others the same chance you would want to have in their place.

In the canon, it's clearly okay for Jedi to kill people. They use blasters, they use starships, they use lightsabers, to do it all the time. They do not, however, EVER use the Force to do it. Not even in defense of themselves, or another even. Why? By my reckoning (again we haven't ever bothered to really dive into it as a table) it's because using the Force to kill someone is always a direct and immediate assertion/harnessing of its Power - in the most absolute sense. Using other means; blasters, starships, lightsabers, all give the opponent a chance - do unto others... I guess XD

I dunno, hard to explain maybe, but this is how our table reconciles our interpretation of the intent of how the mechanic was meant to be used, and the canon examples of behavior/use of the Force.

Interestingly, though, Jedi do use the Force to "kill" droids, in great numbers. I know that droids aren't living, therefor are not touched by the Force, but they exhibit sentience and all of the other hallmarks of an intelligent species.

I understand that stormtroopers' faceless armor and the anthropomorphic battledroids were created to de-humanize them to make it "OK" for the heroes to kill them in teh movies. Separating the movies from the game, though, why doesn't destroying droids generate Conflict? As a PC race, they are "people" by default, are they not?

Interestingly, though, Jedi do use the Force to "kill" droids, in great numbers. I know that droids aren't living, therefor are not touched by the Force, but they exhibit sentience and all of the other hallmarks of an intelligent species.

I understand that stormtroopers' faceless armor and the anthropomorphic battledroids were created to de-humanize them to make it "OK" for the heroes to kill them in teh movies. Separating the movies from the game, though, why doesn't destroying droids generate Conflict? As a PC race, they are "people" by default, are they not?

No, they are not people, but they can be very convincing simulacrums of people. Regardless, the Force is not fooled.

Suppose you have your baseline average character, who has the ethical code and background of a normal, civilised being in the galaxy. Let's say he has to kill someone to save himself. The GM deems this as being worth 15 conflict, because it's the first time he's caused another being's death and is understandably remorseful about it.

A characters ethical code is moot. Just follow the chart and you'll be fine. The ideas behind Conflict get a bit out of hand if you start giving out different amounts based on the characters background. It also mean that person could write a background that just justifies evil and thus shouldn't gain Conflict. That's not really the intent.

Also, should a cause, such as toppling the Imperium, reduce the Conflict that comes from killing beings and stuff like that?

The ends don't justify the means. If you use mass murder and torture to free the galaxy from the Empire you are still going to gain the same amount of Conflict for if you were using those methods to enslave the galaxy. This is meant to play up how the path to hell is paved in good intentions (which was how Anakin falls).

Any force-sensitive individual should be held to a higher standard, so for example a warden using coercion to force an npc to change his mind will be given conflict of 2, if he uses a dark side pip he will gain an additional 1 conflict, however the book does call that motivations can affect this. If he uses that pip to fuel a force power selflessly, eg to save an innocent the conflict remains at 1, if he uses it for personal gain or if he uses it maliciously that same dark side pip can gain him up to 6 conflict (this is called out in the book) so using influence and using 2 dark side pips to coerce an NPC to give you a cheaper price on a star ship for example can give 2 conflict for the coercion and up to another 12 for using 2 dark side pips for greed for a total of 14 conflict.

So motivations can make a difference when it comes to using dark side pips for force powers so much so that it can up the amount by up to 5 per point used.

I see Conflict as a roleplaying tool for the player. Is it relative or absolute? The answer is a resounding YES!

I did it my way (apologies to Mr. Sinatra)

Morality is a very personal thing. How you react to conflict is your choice. What's not your choice though, is that there is going to be conflict. That is non-negotiable.

Regrets, I've had a few

The assumption is that you did something that you feel bad about. How bad you feel is proportional to the conflict you received. But it's your choice if you rationalize and downplay or if you agonize over it. Both are valid ways to portray conflict.

But then again, too few to mention.

In the end, the roll of the die decides how well you sleep at night. If you're at peace with your decisions, you've probably done all right and deserve to stay where you are on the morality meter (or go even higher.)

I did what I had to do

Sometimes, you're faced with tough choices. These choices bring conflict regardless of what you choose to do. Sometimes, this does mean killing a person to save the life of another. Is that a decision that leads you to the Dark Side? Maybe, maybe not. Does it bring conflict? Absolutely.

And saw it through without exemption

Ultimately, deciding to do what's right and doing so without hesitation is probably the best way towards Paragon. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - the cornerstones of shady political and social media campaigns - are indubitably the way to the Darkside. If you have certainty that what you decided was the best possible course of action, then you are probably a much more stable individual as a result. If you are guilt-ridden individual lashing out because of psychological trauma (self-inflicted or not,) you're probably slipping.

That's about as far as I'm going to torture that Sinatra classic, hope that helped.

snip

Nice post, though I would kind of disagree on your last comment, about if you feel confident you did the right thing, you are stable, and if you have doubt, you are slipping. Many other forms of literature have stated something basically along the lines of "You question if you are doing the right thing, if you think you are a bad person for what you've done, if you are questioning if what you did was right, then you are probably not an evil person. Evil people don't question what they do, they just do it." That the questioning of the right or wrong of what you did, shows that you still actually care about the outcome of your actions. To be so certain about your actions being right, and not questioning it, can lead to dogmatic behavior, and deciding the best thing to do is to kill younglings, because it's right.

Nice post, though I would kind of disagree on your last comment, about if you feel confident you did the right thing, you are stable, and if you have doubt, you are slipping. Many other forms of literature have stated something basically along the lines of "You question if you are doing the right thing, if you think you are a bad person for what you've done, if you are questioning if what you did was right, then you are probably not an evil person. Evil people don't question what they do, they just do it." That the questioning of the right or wrong of what you did, shows that you still actually care about the outcome of your actions. To be so certain about your actions being right, and not questioning it, can lead to dogmatic behavior, and deciding the best thing to do is to kill younglings, because it's right.

The Morality system in the World of Darkness games (or the nWoD at least, I don't have any experience with the older lines) worked on a similar logic. If an action stops generating conflict, it's because the character's moral compass (represented by a Morality score) has degraded to the point where they no longer have any difficulty justifying it to themselves. Notably, that means a character's morality can only drop so much by committing the same minor misdeeds over and over. The descent to depravity requires an escalating series of crimes.

snip

Nice post, though I would kind of disagree on your last comment, about if you feel confident you did the right thing, you are stable, and if you have doubt, you are slipping. Many other forms of literature have stated something basically along the lines of "You question if you are doing the right thing, if you think you are a bad person for what you've done, if you are questioning if what you did was right, then you are probably not an evil person. Evil people don't question what they do, they just do it." That the questioning of the right or wrong of what you did, shows that you still actually care about the outcome of your actions. To be so certain about your actions being right, and not questioning it, can lead to dogmatic behavior, and deciding the best thing to do is to kill younglings, because it's right.

Good point. Note that I avoid talking about good and evil. These categories are part of the moral calculus that every person has to run before making a decision. I also think that every person is the hero of his own story, so nobody would consciously choose to "do evil."

I think the morality rules pretty much give you a metric to show you how bad you should feel. That certain people (psychopaths) would feel less conflicted is not part of the rules, because the rules assume you don't play a psychopath. They assume you play a normal person, hero of his or her own story, who would feel appropriately terrible if he did something deserving of that amount of conflict. It's a roleplaying aid first and foremost.

I really don't want to delve too much into the "killing younglings" part of Anakin Skywalker's path to murderhobodom, because I don't think the movie does a very good job there explaining Vader to us. It might have been more powerful to show Anakin doing nothing decisive, just letting it happen. Because I think that evil can happen because good people do nothing.

Hello!

Just a simple question that popped up in my mind.

Suppose you have your baseline average character, who has the ethical code and background of a normal, civilised being in the galaxy. Let's say he has to kill someone to save himself. The GM deems this as being worth 15 conflict, because it's the first time he's caused another being's death and is understandably remorseful about it.

I dont award conflicts to people who kill in self defence.

Hello!

Just a simple question that popped up in my mind.

Suppose you have your baseline average character, who has the ethical code and background of a normal, civilised being in the galaxy. Let's say he has to kill someone to save himself. The GM deems this as being worth 15 conflict, because it's the first time he's caused another being's death and is understandably remorseful about it.

I dont award conflicts to people who kill in self defence.

I would definitely agree with that since the conflict chart calls out murder. This is a universe of conflict where you may commonly be called to defend yourself or protect others.

I dont award conflicts to people who kill in self defence.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's entirely possible to defend yourself without resorting to deadly force, particularly with the tools & talents at the disposal of a typical PC. There's enough possible scenarios to make pointless to start the debate, but if a PC is capable enough to thrash someone who attacks him or her, I think failing to exercise some restraint when teaching the thug a lesson should definitely cause conflict. You may envision the scenario entirely differently, of course.

I dont award conflicts to people who kill in self defence.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's entirely possible to defend yourself without resorting to deadly force, particularly with the tools & talents at the disposal of a typical PC. There's enough possible scenarios to make pointless to start the debate, but if a PC is capable enough to thrash someone who attacks him or her, I think failing to exercise some restraint when teaching the thug a lesson should definitely cause conflict. You may envision the scenario entirely differently, of course.

Self Defense never gives Conflict. Even in the old systems, Self Defense was always justified. Even the actual lore in both EU and the movies state that acting in the defense of self or others, even if it means taking a life, is justified. As Yoda said to Luke, "The Jedi use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." If you are acting in the defense of yourself or others, you may kill without risk of falling to the Dark Side (read, no Conflict). It is acting out of selfishness, fear, anger, hate, committing cold-blooded murder or needless aggression which garners Conflict, not killing in the defense of self or others.

Self Defense never gives Conflict. Even in the old systems, Self Defense was always justified. Even the actual lore in both EU and the movies state that acting in the defense of self or others, even if it means taking a life, is justified. As Yoda said to Luke, "The Jedi use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." If you are acting in the defense of yourself or others, you may kill without risk of falling to the Dark Side (read, no Conflict). It is acting out of selfishness, fear, anger, hate, committing cold-blooded murder or needless aggression which garners Conflict, not killing in the defense of self or others.

I understand that, I do. If a PC finds themselves in a pitched battle, fighting for their life I wouldn't award conflict for killing an enemy. But a PC that gets mugged, or steps in to prevent a murder doesn't need to kill the bad guy in order to defend himself or another person. Yes, I'm sure where we could all envision scenarios where that actually is the case but that's not the point.

Perhaps I need to specify something; in games that I run, bad guys rarely ever fight to the death. Imperials maybe, droids on occasion, but your average thug, gangster, tomb-robber, or scum isn't going to stick around to get dead once the PCs open up a can of whoop-ass. Neither do slavers, spies, bounty hunters, or most beasts. If all of your fights are to the death, then I could see cutting the PCs some slack on Conflict. If I'm running a fight, my players know that the mugger who just tried to backstab them isn't interested in dying and that they'll earn Conflict if they fail to exercise some restraint. To me, that would be exactly the sort of needless aggression that you specify as Conflict-worthy.

Just my $0.02.

Nice post, though I would kind of disagree on your last comment, about if you feel confident you did the right thing, you are stable, and if you have doubt, you are slipping. Many other forms of literature have stated something basically along the lines of "You question if you are doing the right thing, if you think you are a bad person for what you've done, if you are questioning if what you did was right, then you are probably not an evil person. Evil people don't question what they do, they just do it." That the questioning of the right or wrong of what you did, shows that you still actually care about the outcome of your actions. To be so certain about your actions being right, and not questioning it, can lead to dogmatic behavior, and deciding the best thing to do is to kill younglings, because it's right.

The Morality system in the World of Darkness games (or the nWoD at least, I don't have any experience with the older lines) worked on a similar logic. If an action stops generating conflict, it's because the character's moral compass (represented by a Morality score) has degraded to the point where they no longer have any difficulty justifying it to themselves. Notably, that means a character's morality can only drop so much by committing the same minor misdeeds over and over. The descent to depravity requires an escalating series of crimes.

Yep, I'm familiar with the system, and the Old WoD system operated the same way. Though my experience playing it, people would roleplay the result wrong. They would act indifferent to something they did wrong, when they passed the Morality check. Instead of feeling upset by what they did, thus showing they still cared about their actions.

Man I remember loooong debates on various website forums for WoD roleplaying sites, about why they shouldn't be hit with a Morality hit, because they feel that X action is ok, based on their personal mindset. Reminds me a LOT of how players try and justify not taking Conflict in this system.

snip

Nice post, though I would kind of disagree on your last comment, about if you feel confident you did the right thing, you are stable, and if you have doubt, you are slipping. Many other forms of literature have stated something basically along the lines of "You question if you are doing the right thing, if you think you are a bad person for what you've done, if you are questioning if what you did was right, then you are probably not an evil person. Evil people don't question what they do, they just do it." That the questioning of the right or wrong of what you did, shows that you still actually care about the outcome of your actions. To be so certain about your actions being right, and not questioning it, can lead to dogmatic behavior, and deciding the best thing to do is to kill younglings, because it's right.

Good point. Note that I avoid talking about good and evil. These categories are part of the moral calculus that every person has to run before making a decision. I also think that every person is the hero of his own story, so nobody would consciously choose to "do evil."

I think the morality rules pretty much give you a metric to show you how bad you should feel. That certain people (psychopaths) would feel less conflicted is not part of the rules, because the rules assume you don't play a psychopath. They assume you play a normal person, hero of his or her own story, who would feel appropriately terrible if he did something deserving of that amount of conflict. It's a roleplaying aid first and foremost.

I really don't want to delve too much into the "killing younglings" part of Anakin Skywalker's path to murderhobodom, because I don't think the movie does a very good job there explaining Vader to us. It might have been more powerful to show Anakin doing nothing decisive, just letting it happen. Because I think that evil can happen because good people do nothing.

I was just using that as an example offhand. There are plenty of other examples you could use from Star Wars I'm sure, though most of mine I can think of offhand are from the Dresden Files books. He frequently had to do some very bad things to save the day, actions that in the FFG system would net him significant conflict. And he thought he was now officially a Bad Guy, because "no good person would do those things." He gave himself zero leeway about such things. It took several of his friends, over several books, to point out to him that A: The fact that you had to make a really bad choice, doesn't make you evil." and B: The fact that you did those things to try and save lives does matter (translating mechanically into awarding fewer Conflict) C: The fact that you actually are upset by what you did, and regret having to do those things, illustrates that you haven't fallen to the Dark Side yet.

By definition Morality is complex and muddy, and the Morality system, by definition is simple and precise. So there will always be debate out how to use it, or to use it at all. I personally like to use it as, you put it, a barometer. To give the player hints on how he should react to some of the things he has done, based on how the results turn out. But, the main problem I have with this, and with Morality systems in games like World of Darkness, is that they rely heavily on the player actually roleplaying doing this detrimental to their characters progression. Too often in my personal experience, I see players who decide to not do an action, not because it doesn't make sense for their character, but because "they don't want to take the Morality hit". This meta-gaming is sadly deeply ingrained in a lot of gamers, who see the whole gaming experience as something to "win". And if they do something that makes them less heroic, but perhaps more realistic, they see it as "not winning". So they game the system. And it's really hard to get some of them out of that mindset.

I dont award conflicts to people who kill in self defence.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's entirely possible to defend yourself without resorting to deadly force, particularly with the tools & talents at the disposal of a typical PC. There's enough possible scenarios to make pointless to start the debate, but if a PC is capable enough to thrash someone who attacks him or her, I think failing to exercise some restraint when teaching the thug a lesson should definitely cause conflict. You may envision the scenario entirely differently, of course.

It's also important to remember that using non lethal means isn't a way out of gaining Conflict. If you're acting in self defense then you can kill (or not it's up to you) without generating Conflict. Within reason of course, some methods of death, even in self defense, should generate Conflict. If you torture someone to death after they attack you then you'll gain Conflict. If you act particularly viscous then you'll likely gain Conflict.

But it's also good to remember that the chart calls out aggressive actions, not killing precisely. The only time killing is mentioned is murder. Otherwise you gain Conflict for resorting to violence of any kind as a first choice. Thus even if you are using non lethal methods you are still going to gain Conflict for starting a fight.

Conflict gain, as such, isn't hung up on killing or not killing. It accepts death as a natural outcome. What matters more is if you are starting fights or defending yourself. People who start fights, even with non lethal methods, are going to gain Conflict. People who are defending themselves, even if it results in death, are not going to gain Conflict (within reason consider the above amendment).

It's also important to remember that using non lethal means isn't a way out of gaining Conflict. If you're acting in self defense then you can kill (or not it's up to you) without generating Conflict. Within reason of course, some methods of death, even in self defense, should generate Conflict. If you torture someone to death after they attack you then you'll gain Conflict. If you act particularly viscous then you'll likely gain Conflict.

But it's also good to remember that the chart calls out aggressive actions, not killing precisely. The only time killing is mentioned is murder. Otherwise you gain Conflict for resorting to violence of any kind as a first choice. Thus even if you are using non lethal methods you are still going to gain Conflict for starting a fight.

Conflict gain, as such, isn't hung up on killing or not killing. It accepts death as a natural outcome. What matters more is if you are starting fights or defending yourself. People who start fights, even with non lethal methods, are going to gain Conflict. People who are defending themselves, even if it results in death, are not going to gain Conflict (within reason consider the above amendment).

OK, I'll buy that, up to a point. I've been viewing this through the lens of "causing death when you didn't need to" through aggression or vindictive/vengeful feelings is worthy of Conflict. I understand where you're coming from regarding Conflict not necessarily being tied to killing, and I agree that starting a non-lethal fight can certainly cause Conflict. I just don't feel that saying "but he started it!" lets the players off the hook if they could have let the bad guys live but didn't.

OK, I'll buy that, up to a point. I've been viewing this through the lens of "causing death when you didn't need to" through aggression or vindictive/vengeful feelings is worthy of Conflict. I understand where you're coming from regarding Conflict not necessarily being tied to killing, and I agree that starting a non-lethal fight can certainly cause Conflict. I just don't feel that saying "but he started it!" lets the players off the hook if they could have let the bad guys live but didn't.

"Could have let the bad guys live but didn't," infers that the battle is already over. At that point, it's a Morality checkpoint. If this is the BBEG, or someone's specific Nemesis, then letting them live even though they could kill him right now should still give Conflict - but just one, for overcoming Hate - as opposed to the 5 or so you'd give them for killing a prisoner.

If you give them Conflict for saying "I know they started it, but you killed them instead of just cutting off their arms to end the fight," then no one here is going to agree with you. That would be the GM punishing the players for not following the GM's morality.

Remember that by the time period of Episode 4, Obi-wan is already such a master of the lightsaber that taking two Setback to use Aim to cut off a Minion's arm in the cantina doesn't even adversely affect his odds of success.

How do you define self defense? In most versions of it, it means using the minimum force necessary to stop your attacker from doing harm. If you have the means of doing effective non-lethal damage (say the stun setting on a blaster) then its hard to justify using a lethal weapon for defense.

How do you define self defense? In most versions of it, it means using the minimum force necessary to stop your attacker from doing harm. If you have the means of doing effective non-lethal damage (say the stun setting on a blaster) then its hard to justify using a lethal weapon for defense.

"Most versions of it" does not matter in this setting. In Star Wars, "self-defense" is defined as not being the one who initiated combat. No more, no less.

After all, if the definition of self-defense in Star Wars required "minimum force," then the Jedi would have espoused the use of stun blasters or Force Bind, instead of frequently maiming people with lightsabers.