So I've been running a group of players through FaD for the last several months and I have been slowly incorporating the conflict system more and more. Recently I started giving conflict for excessive violence during combat.

My definition of excessive violence is simply any hostile action that goes beyond what is necessary to incapacitate the foe. Now in the cases I'm about to give I did not explain that exceeding the wound threshold does not necessarily mean the NPC is dead just incapacitated (this was not an issue until this player whined). That situation will be remedied this Sunday.

Case 1 - A no conflict situation for me: A group of 3 minions of the violent criminals/bounty hunters/stormtroopers/rebel soldier (Not the Alliance) variety face off against one of the PCs armed with a lightsaber. He wades in bisecting one, decapitating another, and severing an arm from the 3rd.

Case 2 - A 6-10 conflict situation: The PC squares off against 1 minion of the previously mentioned variety and removes both arms from the combatant and then decapitates them after removing the threat.

Player's argument: In combat the heat of the moment takes over and you do what you have to do to remove the threat. ie You end up wrestling with an armed gunman and one of you will die.

My argument: FaD characters operate based on a code of combat conduct similar to cops. If the enemy uses lethal force against you, you are allowed to retaliate in kind, if however you incapacitate your foe (severing the sword/gun arm) without killing them you cannot then use lethal force to "finish the job."

The player is reportedly not having fun any more because of this and a few other reasons because he says the targets are enemy combatants not innocents. I've been kicking around the idea of not awarding conflict unless it is truly excessive or the target is a member of law enforcement, or civilian. Conflict for unprovoked attacks would still be a key part of the game.

Thoughts and ideas?

Maybe ask the player how he would feel if he were incapacitated and a Minion put a blaster bolt to the back of his head, just to make sure the threat has been resolved? (Edit: Then narrate the Minion's leader berating him; "That's out of line, Mister Qrul! I wanted them alive!")

In my opinion, Conflict is not a mechanic of action but of consequence. Many players of many RPGs simply cannot engage to a level of immersion where consequences hold any significant meaning, thus when consequences arise, such as accruing Conflict, it's little different than slapping the hand of a two-year old and saying "No!" when they try to put a PB&J in the VCR; they simply don't have the mental capacity to understand the context.

Yeah, any time you pursue violent action against someone that's not an active threat, that's grounds for the PC gaining Conflict. And the character being "in the heat of the moment" isn't a justification, but rather an excuse.

I would suggest having a chat with the player, even if only to make sure that the two of you are on the same wavelength. One issue that's been a near-constant with Star Wars RPGs is their various takes on a "falling to the dark side" mechanic, with FFG's approach being the most lenient and WEG's approach the most stringent. But they all share the one constant that being a Force user, Jedi or otherwise, requires holding oneself to a higher standard than the rest of the galaxy. It's not quite a strict as an old school D&D Paladin's Code of Conduct (unless you're aiming to be a Light Side Paragon), but it does require the player to exercise a degree of restraint.

There's a long history of players trying to justify actions that would net them dark side points in prior RPGs, using excuses of the character's cultural upbringing or philosophical beliefs, while overlooking (or more often just ignoring) that the Force operates in terms of black (dark side) and white (light side). In Star Wars, it's not the intentions that matter but the actions.

It's also worth mentioning that a few points of Conflict here and there aren't that big of a deal, and the designers actually wrote the Morality/Conflict rules with the idea that most PCs are going to earn a few points of Conflict each session, but that doing so won't immediately plunge you to the dark side.

If your player want's their character to be akin to a maverick/cowboy cop, then they'll need to accept that playing "fast and loose" with conventional morality is going to net them Conflict. If the player can't handle that, then perhaps they'd be better off playing a character that uses an EotE or AoR career and isn't Force-sensitive instead.

Sounds like your player wants to play a dark sider rather than a Jedi. And if he doesn't then he should know going full ep III Anakin on his enemies is going to put him on that path regardless of intent. Anakin didn't purposefully go down that path in the beginning either, but he kept racking up the conflict and bam, Dark Jedi. Beheading a defenseless Dooku certainly earned him some conflict.

Murder alone was iirc 10 conflict. Ones an enemy is no direct threat anymore, we are directly in the murder category. Heat of the moment is just the reason why it is so easy to fall to the darkside.

And yeah, beheading the defenseless Doku was most likely the point when Anakin lost his Paragon of good status finally, he was bleeding points throughout the whole clone wars, but the battle of Coruscant was the tipping point for him just like Palpatine wanted.

Thinking about it: Beheading Doku might be even his actual fall to the darkside. The point when his morality had fallen below 30 based on that action. He just complettet his journey afterwards and reached zero when he slaughtered the Younglings.

Either way that is indeed the stuff that conflict is made off and Sun Djem, sunder and parry are there for a reason. If you aim for their weapons instead of their bodies you can even avoid all damage to them and still disarm opponents without much trouble.

This is an interesting issue which would have been devastating for the last game I played in, our group found a planet that was worshipping a Rakata computer left behind from the Infinite Empire, the entire native population engaged in unsavory things. My character is a Shadow, his job is to find and eliminate dark side threats.

Was he wrong to slaughter a dozen or so perpetrators of various nastiness? Why or why not in 3,000 words.

As of now we don't incorporate conflict because the three force users would likely be dark side by now.

Given how this system handles combat the fact that taking the minions out isn't the same as killing them anyone who takes the time to say they cut off someones arms and then beheads them is deserving of Conflict. They stopped being a threat when they lost their arms after all. Heat of combat isn't justiifcation for much anything. One of the things that Force users need to understand is that they are playing by a higher standard.

And honestly I question why the player would feel the need to describe themselves as chopping off arms and then decapitation. Like if you just want them dead then just kill them outright instead of going to the hassel of chopping them to bits and pieces. Anyone going that far is going down a dark path.

That's simple, flavor for the pc. One member of my group is a mandalorian criminal another a Sith warrior 300 years late, who as a punishment to a Jedi has been made her padawan. Both are able to be sadists in the right situation.

That's simple, flavor for the pc. One member of my group is a mandalorian criminal another a Sith warrior 300 years late, who as a punishment to a Jedi has been made her padawan. Both are able to be sadists in the right situation.

Flavor for the PC doesn't opt you out of Conflict. You want to be a sadist in combat, by all means. But if you're taking the time to do that then you are deserving of any and all Conflict you earn.

As I said, if you are taking the time to describe that you're basically hacking your enemies into bits and pieces then you have no viable excuse for not gaining Conflict.

It sounds like the latter is dark side already—why are they complaining about Conflict?

I think the party may be misinterpreting things a bit. Conflict isn't a punishment, it's a way to represent the (lack of) morality of a character's actions. If you're playing a dark character, it's perfectly reasonable to earn large amounts of Conflict. It's part of the system that tracks Morality, not a GM judgement on the player.

If it was a force user then no. The threat is far from over.

If it was your normal everyday minion then fully deserved.

That's simple, flavor for the pc. One member of my group is a mandalorian criminal another a Sith warrior 300 years late, who as a punishment to a Jedi has been made her padawan. Both are able to be sadists in the right situation.

Flavor for the PC doesn't opt you out of Conflict. You want to be a sadist in combat, by all means. But if you're taking the time to do that then you are deserving of any and all Conflict you earn.

As I said, if you are taking the time to describe that you're basically hacking your enemies into bits and pieces then you have no viable excuse for not gaining Conflict.

My answer was directly toward your first post of

And honestly I question why the player would feel the need to describe themselves as chopping off arms and then decapitation.

I donno about you, but I figured most people would faint from shock after the first amputation. Xd

First of all though, has excessive violence actually been an issue so far? E.g. Does the player, having won combat then proceed to "finish" off the incapacitated? Or does he continue to target those that have given up? Does he have a no witness policy? Forget the actions a moment but focus on the goals, is the character excessive in achieving those goals?

Also do the other players have a role to play in this? Start assigning them conflict for inaction if they are becoming spectators and make it something for them to handle in a flowing narrative. Go easy on this though, in a lot of situations they won't be in a postion to interviene but it should be relivant to all force users to share inter party dialogue.

Also, what are the other issues you player is currently having? I feel that is very important.

IMO, if you are being a Sadist, then by definition you are earning Conflict.

Sadistic behaviour of any sort, way, shape, or form is something that necessarily creates situations where plenty of Conflict should be dealt.

Now, if you aren’t a Force user, then Conflict isn’t something you track or need to worry about.

But a Force user that is being Sadistic should definitely be earning lots and lots of Conflict.

And honestly I question why the player would feel the need to describe themselves as chopping off arms and then decapitation.

I'm reading this as why would the individual who is reading the paper representation of themselves in game doing this. I do absolutely agree that this character, unless intentionally playing dark side, would gain conflict unless there is a severe mitigating circumstance.

Even if he is playing to become a dark sider he would gain the conflict. Conflict is not a punishment, but just a mechanic needed for the morallity mechanic. You can literally spend resources on character generation to get your morality to a lower value, it is not a punishment.

This is an interesting issue which would have been devastating for the last game I played in, our group found a planet that was worshipping a Rakata computer left behind from the Infinite Empire, the entire native population engaged in unsavory things. My character is a Shadow, his job is to find and eliminate dark side threats.

Was he wrong to slaughter a dozen or so perpetrators of various nastiness? Why or why not in 3,000 words.

As of now we don't incorporate conflict because the three force users would likely be dark side by now.

Depends really, Jedi traditionally had to uphold the local laws so that even if they found a entire culture, tattooine for example then they aren't really under any obligation to crush slavery.

So is this planet actually a threat or one precieved as a threat? The normal response would be to destroy the computer and send the republic in to handle these people or in the dark times era one would be much more concerned about their own necks or simply can't spend the effort beyond destroying the source of evil (the computer) and moving on. Committing genocide for the sake of a corrupted culture isn't the kind of thing that would endear any bringer of light to the population.

Killing an opponent after they are already no longer a threat to you absolutely causes conflict, and saying it happened in the heat of battle is no excuse. Staying in control is part of the Jedi code.

The important part to keep in mind about light side vs. dark side is that "the greater good" doesn't count when it comes to avoiding conflict. The entire Empire is the result of people believing in "the greater good", kill and oppress a few people here or there to keep the whole galaxy safe from another clone war! Peace through total control. The force doesn't care about your intentions or long term effects of what you do, it cares if the immediate action you take is good or bad.

Another thing to keep in mind though is that conflict itself is neutral. You don't have to avoid all conflict to be a light side character, in fact if you're just sitting at 100 morality and never budge from that your DM isn't throwing you enough of a challenge. The real world is messy and no place for saints.

A F&D game should always keep in mind that all the most powerful Jedi are in exile for a reason. Because if you're strong enough to draw the attention of the Empire through your actions you become the source of conflict.

"In combat the heat of the moment takes over and you do what you have to do to" that way lies the dark side it does!-Yoda

Homestly have a session 0 to make sure your all on the same point of view for the story. You might have to just go Darksider for the story to play out (one of our podcast groups did a Sith of the old republic one shot and loved it!)

In my mind "heat of the moment" sounds like acting on fear and/or anger and gets conflict on top of that coming from killing helpless targets.

All Combat should give Conflict because it's essentially a Dark pursuit, however this doesn't mean a lot of Conflict. 1 or 2 points of Conflict for a battle is a good representation of a Force Using PC's inner conflict to determine how far they must go to protect life etc., if the PC does something egregious then thats when you pile on the Conflict points.

Just remind your Players that the system is designed for them to gain a few Conflict each session and to not get too caught up in it and to really pay attention to their Morality score. Morality is the measure of a PC's slide to the Dark Side not Conflict.

While I disagree with FuriousGreg (I don't think all combat should cause Conflict), if the character engages in it too willingly, that's Conflict-worthy. If I'm a powerful Jedi, and some thug pulls a blaster on me, I have a lot of options. I might deflect his blaster bolts and run away. I might use Move to yank his blaster away. I might wave my hand and say, "This is a very bad idea." As a Jedi Knight, I have a duty to seek a peaceful resolution. Now, it might not be there. Sometimes you gotta cut a dude's hand off. Sometimes you gotta run him through. But you don't get to just say, "He's evil and a threat, therefore I can kill him."

It's a rough Galaxy. Fights happen, people get killed, but performing a coup-de-grace on your defeated foe is always a Dark action. Not to say I wouldn't do it to a hated Nemesis, but I also wouldn't complain about the Conflict I would gain from doing so.

While I disagree with FuriousGreg (I don't think all combat should cause Conflict), if the character engages in it too willingly, that's Conflict-worthy. If I'm a powerful Jedi, and some thug pulls a blaster on me, I have a lot of options. I might deflect his blaster bolts and run away. I might use Move to yank his blaster away. I might wave my hand and say, "This is a very bad idea." As a Jedi Knight, I have a duty to seek a peaceful resolution. Now, it might not be there. Sometimes you gotta cut a dude's hand off. Sometimes you gotta run him through. But you don't get to just say, "He's evil and a threat, therefore I can kill him."

It's a rough Galaxy. Fights happen, people get killed, but performing a coup-de-grace on your defeated foe is always a Dark action. Not to say I wouldn't do it to a hated Nemesis, but I also wouldn't complain about the Conflict I would gain from doing so.

I don't disagree, not all fights are a choice for a Jedi but being lethal surly is Conflict worthy. Keep in mind I'm not suggesting that it should be a great deal of Conflict only 1 or 2 to represent the pre/post killing contemplation thats bound to occur. It's important to not look at this Conflict as a penalty but as a reminder that all Jedi/Light Side Force Users should always be struggling with the taking of life for whatever reason, at least in the context of the Light/Dark conflict. Mechanically 1 or 2 Conflict pts amount to a very unlikely gain in negative Morality.

It sounds like the latter is dark side already—why are they complaining about Conflict?

I think the party may be misinterpreting things a bit. Conflict isn't a punishment, it's a way to represent the (lack of) morality of a character's actions. If you're playing a dark character, it's perfectly reasonable to earn large amounts of Conflict. It's part of the system that tracks Morality, not a GM judgement on the player.

I'm pretty sure the player isn't trying to play a dark side character, if he was, he wouldn't be upset that he's getting Conflict, and arguing for ways to get out of being awarded it. He wants to keep being a violent person, but still be a "good guy". Hence the problem, he's trying to act one way, while pretending to be another. And I'm pretty sure this is all on the meta level, not the character itself.

Basically he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

OT: As others above have stated, you need to have a talk with the player about expectations and what Conflict means. If he's still hurt about "wah! my actions have consequences I don't like! I'm not having fun!" then maybe he shouldn't be playing a force user, or perhaps he should stick to some game where everyone is a jacka**, like Warhammer 40k or something, where horrible people are lauded and praised for their horrible behavior. This is Star Wars, it operates on a different framework.

While I disagree with FuriousGreg (I don't think all combat should cause Conflict), if the character engages in it too willingly, that's Conflict-worthy. If I'm a powerful Jedi, and some thug pulls a blaster on me, I have a lot of options. I might deflect his blaster bolts and run away. I might use Move to yank his blaster away. I might wave my hand and say, "This is a very bad idea." As a Jedi Knight, I have a duty to seek a peaceful resolution. Now, it might not be there. Sometimes you gotta cut a dude's hand off. Sometimes you gotta run him through. But you don't get to just say, "He's evil and a threat, therefore I can kill him."

It's a rough Galaxy. Fights happen, people get killed, but performing a coup-de-grace on your defeated foe is always a Dark action. Not to say I wouldn't do it to a hated Nemesis, but I also wouldn't complain about the Conflict I would gain from doing so.

I don't disagree, not all fights are a choice for a Jedi but being lethal surly is Conflict worthy. Keep in mind I'm not suggesting that it should be a great deal of Conflict only 1 or 2 to represent the pre/post killing contemplation thats bound to occur. It's important to not look at this Conflict as a penalty but as a reminder that all Jedi/Light Side Force Users should always be struggling with the taking of life for whatever reason, at least in the context of the Light/Dark conflict. Mechanically 1 or 2 Conflict pts amount to a very unlikely gain in negative Morality.

That is true, but I can see Grand Falloon's point that just because a Force user gets into a fight means they get Conflict, even if it's only a point or two.

If the PC didn't take any steps to try and defuse the situation (example: Obi-Wan trying to talk down those two goons in the Mos Eisley Cantina), then I agree that Conflict should be handed out, as the Force user went straight to violence to solve the dilemma, with more handed out if the Force user employed a deliberately lethal method of attack as their first response.

Now, maybe it's my own play experiences across a multitude of Star Wars RPGs, but I'd say that if a Force user simply stood by and allowed a fellow PC (one with better social/diplomatic skills) to try and non-violently defuse a situation, then that would still count as trying for a non-violent resolution, since they aren't doing anything to escalate an already tense situation. So a Shii-Cho Knight who simply hangs back and passes their turn to the party face so they could cajole a group of Hutt enforcers to leave them alone would, to me at least, count as not resorting to violence as the immediate solution, even more so of they provided assistance to the Charmer's Charm/Negotiation/Deception skill check (even if it's just a boost die for unskilled assistance). If the skill check fails and the Hutt enforcers draw weapons, I would say no Conflict for the Shii-Cho Knight as he gave the non-aggressive solution a try, and did not themselves directly escalate the situation to aggressive negotiations.

That is true, but I can see Grand Falloon's point that just because a Force user gets into a fight means they get Conflict, even if it's only a point or two.

If the PC didn't take any steps to try and defuse the situation (example: Obi-Wan trying to talk down those two goons in the Mos Eisley Cantina), then I agree that Conflict should be handed out, as the Force user went straight to violence to solve the dilemma, with more handed out if the Force user employed a deliberately lethal method of attack as their first response.

Now, maybe it's my own play experiences across a multitude of Star Wars RPGs, but I'd say that if a Force user simply stood by and allowed a fellow PC (one with better social/diplomatic skills) to try and non-violently defuse a situation, then that would still count as trying for a non-violent resolution, since they aren't doing anything to escalate an already tense situation. So a Shii-Cho Knight who simply hangs back and passes their turn to the party face so they could cajole a group of Hutt enforcers to leave them alone would, to me at least, count as not resorting to violence as the immediate solution, even more so of they provided assistance to the Charmer's Charm/Negotiation/Deception skill check (even if it's just a boost die for unskilled assistance). If the skill check fails and the Hutt enforcers draw weapons, I would say no Conflict for the Shii-Cho Knight as he gave the non-aggressive solution a try, and did not themselves directly escalate the situation to aggressive negotiations.

That sounds reasonable to me, and as long as the Shii-Cho Knight in question doesn't go full on blood thirsty mode during the combat, and uses the minimum force necessary, I see no issue with skipping over conflict. Now, if the Knight, instead decides to, as mentioned in an above example, chop the guys arms off and THEN take off his head, yeah that's definitely going to warrant conflict, even if he tried to not fight in the first place.

But yeah, taking multiple attempts to defuse a hostile situation, that then fails due to factors outside of the PC's control, yeah, that's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned, in and of itself.