Something that should perhaps be explicitly mentioned considering it runs counter to how a lot of other games customarily run: There's no reason why a PC can't be a dark sider and continue to work with the party if they're willing to put up with their behavior. This isn't a system where it is expected that a character that goes "Evil" will turn into an NPC, provided your group hasn't set expectations about tone and story that make dark side behavior disruptive. You should still, of course, have there be in-world consequences (good and bad) for behavior, but those don't need to be punitive. After all, there are plenty of bounty hunters, crime lords, dark jedi, and politicians who enjoy long, successful careers before somebody sends them tumbling to their demise.

(I realize this is a bit redundant with what people are saying re: Conflict not being a punishment, but I still think it's worth stating directly.)

I would definitely have a chat to the player and ask if there is any reason they don't want to play a Dark Side PC. It's entirely possible, non game breaking, and suits the tone of character.

Something that should perhaps be explicitly mentioned considering it runs counter to how a lot of other games customarily run: There's no reason why a PC can't be a dark sider and continue to work with the party if they're willing to put up with their behavior. This isn't a system where it is expected that a character that goes "Evil" will turn into an NPC, provided your group hasn't set expectations about tone and story that make dark side behavior disruptive. You should still, of course, have there be in-world consequences (good and bad) for behavior, but those don't need to be punitive. After all, there are plenty of bounty hunters, crime lords, dark jedi, and politicians who enjoy long, successful careers before somebody sends them tumbling to their demise.

(I realize this is a bit redundant with what people are saying re: Conflict not being a punishment, but I still think it's worth stating directly.)

True, but given the way the player is behaving, it doesn't seem like they actually WANT to go dark side. Most players I know that want to play an anti-hero are more than happy to gleefully jump onto the Evil Slide of Death and Fun, head first. This player though, based on the OP, doesn't want to have a negative reaction to their actions, and has attempted to justify why what he's doing isn't worthy of negative consequences. That sounds to me, more like a player who wants to be a "good guy", but also wants to gleefully chop people up with a glowstick of death.

As I am not that familiar with the Conflict points, I will use this topic to ask my question.

A group of imperial scums + AT-ST are chasing a defensless and innocent Ewok. The Jedi character would not get a conflict point if he used the Move power to topple the AT-ST to block the troopers, but he would get a conflict point(s) if he would use the Move power to slam AT-ST on the troopers killing them in a big explosive holywood style. Do you agree?

As I am not that familiar with the Conflict points, I will use this topic to ask my question.

A group of imperial scums + AT-ST are chasing a defensless and innocent Ewok. The Jedi character would not get a conflict point if he used the Move power to topple the AT-ST to block the troopers, but he would get a conflict point(s) if he would use the Move power to slam AT-ST on the troopers killing them in a big explosive holywood style. Do you agree?

I'd say no Conflict on both counts, given that these are Imperials that are deliberately attacking an innocent. Said Imperials have already engaged in active violence against an innocent, so there's no need for the Jedi to try and "talk them down," and thus no Conflict for using the AT-ST to squash the troopers.

The problem with having a dark side user amongst a group of light is that it will often be incumbent upon the lights to actively stop or try to stop the dark, lest they get conflict for just standing by and letting the bad things happen. So it inherently breeds group conflict.

Which isn't necessarily bad if your group can handle that type of thing without getting bent out of shape OOC. But in my experience this is rare. Someone is eventually going to get sick of it.

The problem with having a dark side user amongst a group of light is that it will often be incumbent upon the lights to actively stop or try to stop the dark, lest they get conflict for just standing by and letting the bad things happen. So it inherently breeds group conflict.

Which isn't necessarily bad if your group can handle that type of thing without getting bent out of shape OOC. But in my experience this is rare. Someone is eventually going to get sick of it.

Well, do recall that going by the suggested Conflict award guidelines, being a bystander only gets you Conflict if the act in question would itself net 6 or more Conflict. And even then, it's only a point or two, though GMs can assign more of the triggering act was especially heinous.

So it is possible to have a character who leans towards the dark side, never undertaking any major Conflict-worthy actions (i.e. nothing that generates 6 or more Conflict in one go) be in a party comprised of PCs that are of a more heroic bent. It may cause some degree of friction in the group, especially if one or more PCs have become LS Paragons by acting (as a good friend of mine put it) like a bunch of Lawful Good Paladins, but nothing that's totally insurmountable provided you're group is comprised of moderately rational beings.

It's when the guy is trying to get into the express lane to being a dark sider by constantly undertaking actions that generate piles of Conflict that the trouble starts cropping up.

I think it's pretty common that a dark spider will activate conflict through a lights moral weakness too. But nice catch, I wasn't aware of that threshold rule.

As I am not that familiar with the Conflict points, I will use this topic to ask my question.

A group of imperial scums + AT-ST are chasing a defensless and innocent Ewok. The Jedi character would not get a conflict point if he used the Move power to topple the AT-ST to block the troopers, but he would get a conflict point(s) if he would use the Move power to slam AT-ST on the troopers killing them in a big explosive holywood style. Do you agree?

I'd say no Conflict on both counts, given that these are Imperials that are deliberately attacking an innocent. Said Imperials have already engaged in active violence against an innocent, so there's no need for the Jedi to try and "talk them down," and thus no Conflict for using the AT-ST to squash the troopers.

On the first point, I'd say collateral damage is Conflict-worthy. I generally treat the Force as being concerned with actions and consequences, not intent, so if you're tossing vehicles around in an area with innocents and some of them get hurt/killed, that's on you because you're not living up to the high standard set by the Force. (Add this to the long list of reasons why getting personally involved in the Clone Wars probably wasn't the best idea for the Jedi.)

There is a distinction, though, between what's fitting for the way the Force seems to work and what keeps everyone happy at the gaming table. So despite the above stance, I wouldn't tell a player, "You know that non-descript building that just collapsed because you threw that AT-ST? That was a church full of orphans. That was bad and you should feel bad." That would rightfully leave a bad taste in the player's mouth. If the character risks collateral damage knowing or having reason to suspect that innocents are present, then Conflict is on the table. Putting civilians in a situation where the players have been given to understand that civilians have been evacuated or have no reason to be there just so that you can give them Conflict for not checking every nook and cranny before cutting loose is dirty pool, even if it is perhaps a concern in warfare.

On the second point, that depends on whether the murder and theft is part of a pattern of behavior or an extreme circumstance. In the latter instance, I wouldn't continually inflict Conflict for using stolen goods, particularly if the Force user is influencing the group to use less extreme methods going forward. In the former case, the Force user is going to be getting plenty more Conflict for future actions the group does without having to continually ding them for simply riding around on the murder ship. I do agree that the Knowing Inaction penalty seems a bit light, though I would hit them with it for every innocent killed and for the theft of a starship. In those circumstances, I'd probably push the situation further by having some of the innocents try to defend themselves, at which point the Force user would have to decide whether to join the fight and on what side, which will probably bring the underlying conflict between PCs to a head and force them to address it.

The more I think about it, though, the more that sounds like a situation that should have been addressed back in Session Zero before the murders even started. If most of the group is planning on playing sociopaths and another player wants to be a Light Side Paragon, then it behooves the GM to point out that that is liable to result either in the force user being corrupted, the rest of the group having to restrain their murderous impulses, or open conflict between the PCs. And if anyone at the table (including the GM) isn't comfortable with that, then some adjustments need to be made before the game proper begins.

As I am not that familiar with the Conflict points, I will use this topic to ask my question.

A group of imperial scums + AT-ST are chasing a defensless and innocent Ewok. The Jedi character would not get a conflict point if he used the Move power to topple the AT-ST to block the troopers, but he would get a conflict point(s) if he would use the Move power to slam AT-ST on the troopers killing them in a big explosive holywood style. Do you agree?

I'd say no Conflict on both counts, given that these are Imperials that are deliberately attacking an innocent. Said Imperials have already engaged in active violence against an innocent, so there's no need for the Jedi to try and "talk them down," and thus no Conflict for using the AT-ST to squash the troopers.

Thanks!

What about the collateral damage? If in the above situation, the PC rolled a Despair (hitting the enemies with the AT-ST walker) and the GM ruled that some innocent bystanders were killed. How much Conflict should the PC receive for the unintended murder?

---

How much Conflict should be awarded for the PC who stays with the group that murdered innocents and stole their property while the force using PC did nothing about and profits from the theft (starship)? Knowing Inaction penalty is too small in this case IMO as the force using PC willingly accepts the groups action or even prefer to look in the other direction. Thank you for any advice.

I don't recall if the Conflict chart includes examples of accident? I mean, if the GM is the one that says "and your actions kill dozens" that's not really a voluntary choice on the part of the player or character. Now, that being said, I would think that such an incident would likely generate conflict, and a decent amount, but not because of anything the player/character did wrong. More along the lines of "oh my god what have I done?!" kind of reaction.

I can only think of one movie example of this, and it was a movie from the 90's, with Denzel Washington and Meg Ryan. Where Denzel's character is trying to figure out how Meg Ryan's character died while deployed to Iraq. Denzel's character was also military, and he had a Dark Past. Turns out, what happened was he accidentally fired on a friendly tank during a large scale tank engagement, killing a tank crew of his own men. And he was NOT ok with this, and it impacted every aspect of his life after that. To me, if you're going to turn something like that into a game mechanic, using a big chunk of Conflict wouldn't be out of the question. The guilt from his actions makes him become bitter, the bitterness turns to anger at himself. The anger makes him lash out at others, isolating him from those who might help him, further pushing him down the Morality scale, as he starts to indulge his darker urges as a form of self punishment, or as a way to escape the guilt. And poof, you've got a Dark Sider.

Another way would be, instead of giving out Conflict, (Though I personally would say do BOTH of these), is to give the PC an obligation of Addiction, as they try and drown their guilt in chems of some kind. "By the time I get to the bottom of the bottle, I can't see their faces screaming at me anymore" kind of thing. Both seem like a viable reaction to an accidental killing of innocents, based on a GM interpretation of the dice results.

As to your second question of how much Conflict for inactivity, given the fatal nature of the example you gave, I would be pretty harsh with the Conflict. "You did nothing and they DIED!". That's not insignificant in my book. probably 7+ conflict, given the context, but that's just off the top of my head.

I mean, ok well this is kind of personal, but when I was younger, I came across a car accident with some kids that had been sideswiped by a van. 4 kids in the car, all of them injured to some degree. One kid was very seriously injured, and was laying in the back seat. The other 3, while hurt, were not seriously injured. Mostly just suffering from shock and some bangs and bruises. The kid in the back...I just couldn't go check on him. I couldn't do it. I was too afraid of the idea of seeing him mangled to do it, so I stayed and helped the 3 kids until the EMTs arrived. The kid in the back ended up dying, and to this day, 20 years later, I still feel regret about that. That maybe if I'd done something he might've pulled through, or at the very least didn't spend his last moments alone in the back of a car, hurt and scared. Does that translate as Conflict? I dunno, I would say it probably did, as it really screwed with my head for years after, and still does to be honest. In a system that Conflict is supposed to reflect the emotional turmoil and instability of a person based on the morality of their actions/inactions, that would seem to me, to be an example of inaction leading to death, and thus Conflict. How much depends on context I would think. Someone choosing to do nothing to gain personal benefit, and someone dies as a result? Higher than maybe them say, failing a Fear check, and letting someone else die due to their own emotional issues. But some Conflict I think would be fitting regardless.

Most of our conflict involves using dark side points to activate force powers

I would most definitely award Conflict if a character was described as having amputated limbs and then head. A no limb character isn't a threat (see Anakin, episode 3), so there is no reason to deal a death blow unless death is your intent.

That said, even the Jedi handbook states that removing a head is favourable to cutting them across the midsection (as Obi-Wan did to Maul). Regardless, Maul wasn't defenceless, your NPC group was.

What about the collateral damage? If in the above situation, the PC rolled a Despair (hitting the enemies with the AT-ST walker) and the GM ruled that some innocent bystanders were killed. How much Conflict should the PC receive for the unintended murder?

If it’s an accident, then it can’t be murder. It could still be homicide, but not murder. Committing murder requires intent to commit homicide, even if on the spur of the moment.

That said, IMO homicide can/should result in conflict being awarded, but probably not as much as you might for murder.

How much Conflict should be awarded for the PC who stays with the group that murdered innocents and stole their property while the force using PC did nothing about and profits from the theft (starship)? Knowing Inaction penalty is too small in this case IMO as the force using PC willingly accepts the groups action or even prefer to look in the other direction. Thank you for any advice.

I might hit them with the “Knowing Inaction” penalty for each session where they continue to do nothing about the murdered innocents. Or maybe give them an addiction of some sort, where they try to blank out that part of their memory, and they suffer setback every time they are not using the drug in question to suit that addiction.

But this is a case where I think you might be best off talking to the player to see how they want to handle it. If they’re not interested in role-playing the addiction and they just want to basically get off “scot free” off the backs of the murdered victims, then I’d definitely go the “Knowing Inaction” route. I might also start amping up that penalty as it should weigh on them more and more heavily until such time as they actually do something about it.

What about the collateral damage? If in the above situation, the PC rolled a Despair (hitting the enemies with the AT-ST walker) and the GM ruled that some innocent bystanders were killed. How much Conflict should the PC receive for the unintended murder?

I wouldn't award Conflict if the GM decides to crush a bunch of bystanders with Despair. It's not the players fault nor was it the players choice. A key component of Conflict are the choices the player makes. If the GM is just narrating it then he's removed the players agency and I do not feel it is fair to the player to give them Conflict under those circumstances.

Now if I warned the player that this course of action could lead to the deaths of innocent bystanders and they go ahead and do it anyway then yes they deserve Conflict, but in that case the player knew the risk involved when he decided to get careless.

What about the collateral damage? If in the above situation, the PC rolled a Despair (hitting the enemies with the AT-ST walker) and the GM ruled that some innocent bystanders were killed. How much Conflict should the PC receive for the unintended murder?

I wouldn't award Conflict if the GM decides to crush a bunch of bystanders with Despair. It's not the players fault nor was it the players choice. A key component of Conflict are the choices the player makes. If the GM is just narrating it then he's removed the players agency and I do not feel it is fair to the player to give them Conflict under those circumstances.

Now if I warned the player that this course of action could lead to the deaths of innocent bystanders and they go ahead and do it anyway then yes they deserve Conflict, but in that case the player knew the risk involved when he decided to get careless.

Yeah, I'm of a similar mind here in regards to collateral damage being caused due to a Despair result equating to automatic Conflict. Or at the very least, give the PC a warning prior to rolling that certain courses of action in combat (like hurling an Imperial speeder around in an urban residential area, or tossing around explosives in a crowded starport) could have the potential for collateral damage just so that it's clear that they know the risks if things don't go smooth (i.e. Despair result).

instead, I'd suggest that the GM use the Despair to set up a situation where collateral damage affecting innocent bystanders is about to occur , and thus give the PC a moral dilemma of "do I go save those people that I inadvertently put in harm's way, or do I focus on the primary threat/objective?" If the Force user opts to save those bystanders, then they don't get Conflict because they did the right thing even though it was a detriment to their primary goal in the scene. If they choose to let the bystandars suffer or refuse to take action to save/protect them, then the PC earns Conflict.

What about the collateral damage? If in the above situation, the PC rolled a Despair (hitting the enemies with the AT-ST walker) and the GM ruled that some innocent bystanders were killed. How much Conflict should the PC receive for the unintended murder?

I wouldn't award Conflict if the GM decides to crush a bunch of bystanders with Despair. It's not the players fault nor was it the players choice. A key component of Conflict are the choices the player makes. If the GM is just narrating it then he's removed the players agency and I do not feel it is fair to the player to give them Conflict under those circumstances.

Now if I warned the player that this course of action could lead to the deaths of innocent bystanders and they go ahead and do it anyway then yes they deserve Conflict, but in that case the player knew the risk involved when he decided to get careless.

Yeah, I'm of a similar mind here in regards to collateral damage being caused due to a Despair result equating to automatic Conflict. Or at the very least, give the PC a warning prior to rolling that certain courses of action in combat (like hurling an Imperial speeder around in an urban residential area, or tossing around explosives in a crowded starport) could have the potential for collateral damage just so that it's clear that they know the risks if things don't go smooth (i.e. Despair result).

instead, I'd suggest that the GM use the Despair to set up a situation where collateral damage affecting innocent bystanders is about to occur , and thus give the PC a moral dilemma of "do I go save those people that I inadvertently put in harm's way, or do I focus on the primary threat/objective?" If the Force user opts to save those bystanders, then they don't get Conflict because they did the right thing even though it was a detriment to their primary goal in the scene. If they choose to let the bystandars suffer or refuse to take action to save/protect them, then the PC earns Conflict.

I really like this approach.

Thank you, it was really instructive to read all your comments.

instead, I'd suggest that the GM use the Despair to set up a situation where collateral damage affecting innocent bystanders is about to occur , and thus give the PC a moral dilemma of "do I go save those people that I inadvertently put in harm's way, or do I focus on the primary threat/objective?" If the Force user opts to save those bystanders, then they don't get Conflict because they did the right thing even though it was a detriment to their primary goal in the scene. If they choose to let the bystandars suffer or refuse to take action to save/protect them, then the PC earns Conflict.

Great idea!

The PC definitely does not feel guilt. They work for the Hutt, the force user is a little orphan and favorite of the Hutt for whom the entire group works. The force user is against unneccesary killing, by herself she never killed anyone yet, but she has no problem profiting from other ppl death caused by their friends. So the pernament penalty sounds interesting.

Currently I have awarded the PC 3 conflicts for stealing the ship (technically her partners stole it, but she knew about the plan, she is fully profiting from it, so I awarded the full amount) and I gave 2 conflicts for "unprovoked assault" as she fully knew that they are going to attack the crew to steal the starship and now she enjoys a ship quarter of one of the murdered owners of the starship.

Considering the people she's associating with, why exactly is she worried about minimizing Conflict? Some characters will find life much more comfortable if they stop acting based on the risk of acquiring Conflict and instead just act and accept that Conflict is natural.

Considering the people she's associating with, why exactly is she worried about minimizing Conflict? Some characters will find life much more comfortable if they stop acting based on the risk of acquiring Conflict and instead just act and accept that Conflict is natural.

The character is not skilled with weapons and from the very first session relies on non-aggressive force powers and charm or deception to do the job. When it comes to killing, she always stays low. The PC is a hypocrite who tells herself that she is better then those around her....after all she is the favorite little one of the Hutt, not the rest of the group.

Considering the people she's associating with, why exactly is she worried about minimizing Conflict? Some characters will find life much more comfortable if they stop acting based on the risk of acquiring Conflict and instead just act and accept that Conflict is natural.

The character is not skilled with weapons and from the very first session relies on non-aggressive force powers and charm or deception to do the job. When it comes to killing, she always stays low. The PC is a hypocrite who tells herself that she is better then those around her....after all she is the favorite little one of the Hutt, not the rest of the group.

You can be non-violent and still swim in the dark side end of the pool. Insensitivity to the suffering of others and a willingness to manipulate them for personal gain can be enough to ride in the middle for some time.

Considering the people she's associating with, why exactly is she worried about minimizing Conflict? Some characters will find life much more comfortable if they stop acting based on the risk of acquiring Conflict and instead just act and accept that Conflict is natural.

The character is not skilled with weapons and from the very first session relies on non-aggressive force powers and charm or deception to do the job. When it comes to killing, she always stays low. The PC is a hypocrite who tells herself that she is better then those around her....after all she is the favorite little one of the Hutt, not the rest of the group.

That doesn't explain an aversion to Conflict. Such a character should be swimming in Conflict as they fight the ebb and flow of good actions vs bad actions. There's more to the Conflict system (and being a lightsider in general) than not killing directly.

The PC definitely does not feel guilt. They work for the Hutt, the force user is a little orphan and favorite of the Hutt for whom the entire group works. The force user is against unneccesary killing, by herself she never killed anyone yet, but she has no problem profiting from other ppl death caused by their friends. So the pernament penalty sounds interesting.

Currently I have awarded the PC 3 conflicts for stealing the ship (technically her partners stole it, but she knew about the plan, she is fully profiting from it, so I awarded the full amount) and I gave 2 conflicts for "unprovoked assault" as she fully knew that they are going to attack the crew to steal the starship and now she enjoys a ship quarter of one of the murdered owners of the starship.

Ok, so the PC is being played in a way that they are not a "good guy". Cool, that clarifies things a bit. So apparently, all the friction is coming from the PLAYER yes? If so, then I would suggest sitting down and talking with them about why they are upset they are being given Conflict, when they are intentionally playing a bad character who uses the Force. Figure out why it's "no fun" for them, get them to put words to the issue.

The PC definitely does not feel guilt. They work for the Hutt, the force user is a little orphan and favorite of the Hutt for whom the entire group works. The force user is against unneccesary killing, by herself she never killed anyone yet, but she has no problem profiting from other ppl death caused by their friends. So the pernament penalty sounds interesting.

Currently I have awarded the PC 3 conflicts for stealing the ship (technically her partners stole it, but she knew about the plan, she is fully profiting from it, so I awarded the full amount) and I gave 2 conflicts for "unprovoked assault" as she fully knew that they are going to attack the crew to steal the starship and now she enjoys a ship quarter of one of the murdered owners of the starship.

Ok, so the PC is being played in a way that they are not a "good guy". Cool, that clarifies things a bit. So apparently, all the friction is coming from the PLAYER yes? If so, then I would suggest sitting down and talking with them about why they are upset they are being given Conflict, when they are intentionally playing a bad character who uses the Force. Figure out why it's "no fun" for them, get them to put words to the issue.

I did not write about any friction, nor that the player is upset about Conflict. The player has no problem accepting the Conflict I am giving, nor to use the dark side if necessary to go past a military checkpoint using the Influence power. Ok, in the latter case she restricts herself, tries not to overuse the dark side during a single session, but since from the beginning of the campaign the character never acted from anger, hate or anything like that, I can understand that the character will be less tempted to reach for the dark side. The starting group was different, they were good guys, but then the composition of the group changed to rather evil as the campaign progressed. I would not say that she plays intentionally an evil character. She works for the Hutt, and the Hutt put her with this group, she is just "following the will of her patron". During the entire campaign she doesn´t kill, she is nice to the people, she tends to help helpless and tries to solve all the puzzles without resorting to the violence. Only when her friends are doing something evil, she tends to look the other way, but then she has no problems using the stolen starship which former crew was airlocked......And there was my original question, ¿how much Conflict points should I give for such hypocrisy? The idea given by bradknowles was to award pernament 1 Conflict - Knowing Inaction - per session. I must say that I feel it is not adequate as I always saw "Knowing Inaction" as a situation where a force user is in a situation where someone harms another and does nothing. Here is a bit different, the force user knowingly stays with an evil group that harms others and even profits from their actions. I am thinking about giving 2 points every session, but I want to be fair and not unbalance things. There was a Order 66 Podcast where Stam Stewart (AFAIR) said that he would give Anakin Skywalker after slaughtering younglins 10 Conflict points every session. So maybe 2 points every session is acceptable. Or 1 or 2 depending how evil was the rest of the hgroup during a specific session.

Nevertheless, I will talk with her about that:

Some characters will find life much more comfortable if they stop acting based on the risk of acquiring Conflict and instead just act and accept that Conflict is natural.

Again, thanks for the feedback!

I did not write about any friction, nor that the player is upset about Conflict. The player has no problem accepting the Conflict I am giving, nor to use the dark side if necessary to go past a military checkpoint using the Influence power.

My bad, I got you mixed up with the OP of the thread who did specifically state that the player in question was upset they were being "punished" with Conflict for hacking people to pieces and then decapitating them. My comments about dealing with the friction were based on that posts data, not yours. Just skimmed the posts too quickly when I was catching up with the newer posts. Oops