I think we should use caution when judging whether an action incurs Conflict or not based on actions taken by Jedi in the movie. I don't think it's safe to assume that any character, even Yoda, is such a light-side paragon that they never ever do anything Conflict-worthy. Especially since thrust of this system seems to be that getting a little bit of Conflict is normal and expected, and that climbing up the morality ladder is a result of minimizing Conflict over time as opposed to avoiding it entirely. I mean, you can gain Conflict involuntarily from a bad roll on a Fear check. That being said, I'd be willing to go along with the idea that once a fight has started, the Force doesn't care what means you use to neutralize the threat as long as you don't move into cruel or sadistic territory.

I think it's also worth noting that the table on page 324 is a starting point. It focuses on concrete actions because those are easier to adjudicate and can encompass some widely agreed-upon situations. The designers probably didn't want to put the GM in the position of feeling the need to judge a character's emotional state as a default. Ideally, though, I think it works better if everyone at the table embraces Conflict as a narrative tool as opposed to a penalty system, because at that point the player can say "You know, I didn't need to cut that guy's arm off, but I was so angry I wanted to teach that scum a lesson, so I should probably get some Conflict," without the GM having to even raise the question.

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.

Well this falls back on my earlier statement of "within reason". This will be situational dependent. I wouldn't award Conflict if they didn't start the fight and were only defending themselves. Assuming they are not particularly viscous or down right evil during combat no Conflict will be gained. On the other hand if the bad guys surrender and they kill them anyway then yes they are deserving of Conflict, even if the fight was in self defense. But if the bad guys surrender I typically consider the fight over anyway and anything afterwards is a new set of actions to consider.

How do you define self defense?

Did the PC's start the fight or was the fight brought to them basically. I know there are a lot of different ways to define it in the real world but for the purpose of this game I tend to view it the same way the Conflict chart implies it should be read, as not initiating combat.

I think we should use caution when judging whether an action incurs Conflict or not based on actions taken by Jedi in the movie. I don't think it's safe to assume that any character, even Yoda, is such a light-side paragon that they never ever do anything Conflict-worthy.

I think Jedi are very good barometer. But I also think it's worth admitting when they stray from the ideal. For the most part the game seems to conform to what we see in the movies. For instance when Mace walks up to Dooku and Jango. He could have easily taken out everyone on that balcony and ended the matter then and there. Instead he offers them the chance to surrender, let go the prisoners and call of this whole silly idea of a droid army. It illustrates how the Jedi are apt to offer the bad guy the chance to surrender before taking violent action.

There are instances when Jedi don't act in a fashion that wouldn't gain Conflict though. And it's important to note when. When Yoda uses Move to violently fling two guards into a wall as he approaches Palpatine is a moment when clearly a Jedi has earned himself some Conflict. The fact that it's Yoda helps to show how Conflict is easily gained and how anyone, even a paragon like Yoda, will occasionally gain some points.

Well, I've been doing some thinking on this as well thanks to this question and I've reflected my play-style and the GM-style that I have.

So my character is the kind that completely avoids all types of situations where one would get Conflict. When he was being robbed, he instead gave the robber and his mother enough credits to buy them shuttle tickets to a safer world. When he was about to get lynched in Nar Shaddaa, he instead gave the opposition a fair warning and even then only cut one arm and knocked two guys unconscious with a Force Push. So he's a really good guy, especially since he's a Mystic with special aptitude to sensing the pain of others. So he tries to minimise all pain around him.

However, that isn't a realistic standard for everyone else, I feel. So, as a GM I think that giving Conflict for self-defence is needless, since it quickly becomes a form of punishment for fighting back, and that's no fun. I mean its Star WARS , so fights and occasional fatalities are part of the whole deal. However, as a GM I should also give the players a chance to actually show restraint by having the enemies drop down their weapons if they start losing or having the enemies be way weaker than the PC's are. Just because some street thugs are holding you up doesn't mean that you should chop them down like an annoying tree stump. So I guess that Conflict shouldn't only guide the players, but the GM as well.

I should also maybe make a house-rule that would allow the players to "restrain" their attacks, so that they don't actually kill the enemy, but instead drop him/her down to 1 Wound or something like that. There is of course the chance that some enemies may try to fight to the death, but many most likely wouldn't.

However, that isn't a realistic standard for everyone else, I feel. So, as a GM I think that giving Conflict for self-defence is needless, since it quickly becomes a form of punishment for fighting back, and that's no fun.

You don't gain Conflict for self defense. That's already in the rules. You gain Conflict for initiating fights.

I should also maybe make a house-rule that would allow the players to "restrain" their attacks, so that they don't actually kill the enemy, but instead drop him/her down to 1 Wound or something like that.

Actually in this game death pretty much occurs when the GM says as much. When Minions go down they are incapacitated but are not necessarily dead. Most GM's rule they are dead but you don't have to. Rivals can be outright killed with a critical hit at the GM's discretion or they can become incapacitated. Nemesis are just like PC's. Thus things really only die when the GM rules they are dead. Therefore there isn't a need for a special rule to reduce the enemies to 0 due to restraint, just make sure the PC's clarify if they are actually killing people or if after the bad guys go down they are walking away to let them live another day.

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 understand what you said. I just prefer to not bother with details. If I am to give my party conficts each time they drew a weapon to fight stormtroopers, inquisitors and other thugs that try to kill them, my game will be really boring.

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 understand what you said. I just prefer to not bother with details. If I am to give my party conficts each time they drew a weapon to fight stormtroopers, inquisitors and other thugs that try to kill them, my game will be really boring.

Why would simply giving them conflict every time they..well, engage in a conflict, be any more boring than giving them strain damage and wound damage from the same conflict? It's just another mechanic. Also, if you are doing combat that much, I would find your campaign boring simply because it's just a combat fest, not because of a conflict mechanic. It depends on the context of the conflict of course, but even just 1-2 points is not that big a deal. Unless you are tossing out 3-4 combat scenes a session, it won't add up to very much conflict each session.

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 understand what you said. I just prefer to not bother with details. If I am to give my party conficts each time they drew a weapon to fight stormtroopers, inquisitors and other thugs that try to kill them, my game will be really boring.

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 understand what you said. I just prefer to not bother with details. If I am to give my party conficts each time they drew a weapon to fight stormtroopers, inquisitors and other thugs that try to kill them, my game will be really boring.

Why would simply giving them conflict every time they..well, engage in a conflict, be any more boring than giving them strain damage and wound damage from the same conflict? It's just another mechanic. Also, if you are doing combat that much, I would find your campaign boring simply because it's just a combat fest, not because of a conflict mechanic. It depends on the context of the conflict of course, but even just 1-2 points is not that big a deal. Unless you are tossing out 3-4 combat scenes a session, it won't add up to very much conflict each session.

Because I dont see the point of giving conflicts to characters if they dont begin the conflict. It is Star Wars man. If my characters run all the time to escape an enemy, It's boring

Because I dont see the point of giving conflicts to characters if they dont begin the conflict. It is Star Wars man. If my characters run all the time to escape an enemy, It's boring

It's certainly your prerogative to run your game that way, and I hope you & your players are enjoying yourselves. For me, I view the F&D setting as more focused on each character's personal journey and development. In that light, Conflict plays a big role in the story where Conflict itself isn't a punishment, but it's part of the decision-making process whenever a PC decides to fight. For me, it goes along with the idea that doing the right thing is almost always the harder path.

If that doesn't interest you, no harm, no foul.

Because I dont see the point of giving conflicts to characters if they dont begin the conflict. It is Star Wars man. If my characters run all the time to escape an enemy, It's boring

It's certainly your prerogative to run your game that way, and I hope you & your players are enjoying yourselves. For me, I view the F&D setting as more focused on each character's personal journey and development. In that light, Conflict plays a big role in the story where Conflict itself isn't a punishment, but it's part of the decision-making process whenever a PC decides to fight. For me, it goes along with the idea that doing the right thing is almost always the harder path.

If that doesn't interest you, no harm, no foul.

For the record the game doesn't recommend giving out Conflict for being in a fight if they didn't start it. You only get Conflict for initiating fights. Being attacked by others and defending yourself in and of itself doesn't automatically generate Conflict. Based on the Conflict chart the game supports villainn6 initial statement of not handing out Conflict for self defense.

It's kinda clear, the game doesn't intend for you to gain Conflict every time you get into a fight. But there are circumstances where it will generate Conflict. But fighting back in self defense isn't meant to be one of those times.

Even if the characters don't start the fight, I would still consider giving conflict if they significantly escalate it. Pulling a blaster or lightsaber out during a fist fight is potentially going to net Conflict even if the other guy throws the first punch.

Even if the characters don't start the fight, I would still consider giving conflict if they significantly escalate it. Pulling a blaster or lightsaber out during a fist fight is potentially going to net Conflict even if the other guy throws the first punch.

Well no one is saying don't give Conflict if they do some particularly bad things. But the mere act of self defense isn't going to generate Conflict. But what counts as escalation is situational. After all, if you whip out a lightsabre and use it to scare them off, maybe only singing them or knocking them out with the butt of the sabre then your fine. It's important to remember that in this game defeat of the NPC's is not automatically death. When things go down they are incapacitated and it's up to the GM and the players to determine what that means in any given situation.

Mind you, whipping out a lightsaber to scare someone off is probably a Coercion check using the threat of violence, which has its own entry on the table. I would probably lower the Conflict gained down to one if the character's only intent is to avoid a fight, but brandishing a weapon still carries the risk of precipitating the fight you are trying to avoid.

Even if the characters don't start the fight, I would still consider giving conflict if they significantly escalate it. Pulling a blaster or lightsaber out during a fist fight is potentially going to net Conflict even if the other guy throws the first punch.

Oops... I just reread and realized you said "consider" so clearly you also believe that it should be situational.

Mind you, whipping out a lightsaber to scare someone off is probably a Coercion check using the threat of violence, which has its own entry on the table. I would probably lower the Conflict gained down to one if the character's only intent is to avoid a fight, but brandishing a weapon still carries the risk of precipitating the fight you are trying to avoid.

And if the character uses his maneuver to disengage before pulling out the lightsaber and says "I don't want to hurt you but I will defend myself if you don't give me another chouce." Would you consider that coercion and a threat of violence or an expression of a desire for a non-violent outcome and fair warning of a possibly lethal outcome for the other guy?

Mind you, whipping out a lightsaber to scare someone off is probably a Coercion check using the threat of violence, which has its own entry on the table. I would probably lower the Conflict gained down to one if the character's only intent is to avoid a fight, but brandishing a weapon still carries the risk of precipitating the fight you are trying to avoid.

And if the character uses his maneuver to disengage before pulling out the lightsaber and says "I don't want to hurt you but I will defend myself if you don't give me another chouce." Would you consider that coercion and a threat of violence or an expression of a desire for a non-violent outcome and fair warning of a possibly lethal outcome for the other guy?

Depends on other potential context, I wouldn't rule that as a coercion check. A coercion check that generates conflict to me is threatening someone with the intention of changing their mind by initiating violence (at least this is how I would rule them earning conflict as a result), this is one of those occasions the GM has to use their own mind, in this case they are actually using coercion to drop the violence level , in fact I wouldn't necessarily say this is a coercion check as your opponent should fear you, and they have already initiated combat