I have only one more thing to say! I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation of the conflict system, just my interpretation -

Conflict is not the result of your characters personal conflict. It's not the result of the conflicted emotions that other characters will have toward you. It's the result of you coming into contact with a situation that has the potential to challenge your characters beliefs or morals.

To use our belabored example - letting the friend die in lieu of using the dark side (I agree that dark pips are equivalent to using the dark side, btw) is to give your character a chance to wrestle with his own belief system. That's represented, in game, with a few conflict points (NOT dark side points). The ROLL that you make against that conflict is what represents your characters struggle to accept his decisions. With only a few points, you're likely to come out ahead. In other words, you thought about your actions, about your decision to NOT use the pips, to not reach for that power... and you feel validated. 'I was RIGHT' you think, 'that IS the way to the Dark side.' When all is said and done, the conflict becomes the thing that brings you further into the light, because it cements the ideas you already held. Conflict is not bad. Lots and lots and lots of conflict is bad. Some conflict, the occasional challenging of your beliefs, is what STRENGTHENS those beliefs.

By saying you never want conflict, you're saying (I think) that you want a character who never falls. But that's not what the conflict system represents. You're skipping over the key part (the internal wrestling and the roll that represents that wrestling), because you've ALREADY DECIDED that this character is incorruptible and so should never even face the challenge of corruption. Which is somewhat anathema to the design of the game and most of the players here.

27 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

This single situation is the core of the Prequel trilogy. It's the core of those films, the Jedi would not allow themselves to do what needed to be done and thus suffered the consequences.

^^ That's exactly why I made an earlier post about the nature of religion and judgement.

28 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

his isn't an adversarial system, this isn't GMvPC gaming, it's a way of telling INTERESTING stories about characters who have to make interesting decisions.

I think this is the key contention. The mechanics should enhance the experience, not control it within an inch of it's life. The rules are loose for a reason; and that's why you have a GM - to have a basic guide through the story and to keep power-gamers from getting lynched by other players when they try to harm space kittens.

30 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

I have only one more thing to say! I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation of the conflict system, just my interpretation -

Conflict is not the result of your characters personal conflict. It's not the result of the conflicted emotions that other characters will have toward you. It's the result of you coming into contact with a situation that has the potential to challenge your characters beliefs or morals.

To use our belabored example - letting the friend die in lieu of using the dark side (I agree that dark pips are equivalent to using the dark side, btw) is to give your character a chance to wrestle with his own belief system. That's represented, in game, with a few conflict points (NOT dark side points). The ROLL that you make against that conflict is what represents your characters struggle to accept his decisions. With only a few points, you're likely to come out ahead. In other words, you thought about your actions, about your decision to NOT use the pips, to not reach for that power... and you feel validated. 'I was RIGHT' you think, 'that IS the way to the Dark side.' When all is said and done, the conflict becomes the thing that brings you further into the light, because it cements the ideas you already held. Conflict is not bad. Lots and lots and lots of conflict is bad. Some conflict, the occasional challenging of your beliefs, is what STRENGTHENS those beliefs. By saying you never want conflict, you're saying (I think) that you want a character who never falls. But that's not what the conflict system represents. You're skiping over the key part, because you've ALREADY DECIDED that this character is incorruptible and so should never even face the challenge of corruption. Which is somewhat anathema to the design of the game.

Still, as I said, there should never be a situation where Conflict is inevitable no matter what choice a character makes. It doesn't matter if it's a little or a lot. And I have never said Korath was "incorruptible", just that to date, he never has given in to that temptation. And that is because of his upbringing. And, for the record, his Master wasn't a "prequel era, Coruscant Temple" Jedi. His Master was an "old School" Pre-Ruusan era Jedi, a 2000+ year old Duinuouguin Jedi Master who remembered a time when Jedi weren't as "dogmatic" about a lot of things as the Jedi from the Prequels were.

31 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

Again your opinion of how the system should work differs from those that created it. Sure your system works, but it upsets the Apple cart so to speak when balance comes into it.

A dark side Force User has no qualms using the light side as required to further their gains, same for those who choose to be in the middle. But if a Light Side character doesn't know when to allow themselves to use their emotions then they will be sitting in their ivory tower unable to see the true nature of the Dark Side. This single situation is the core of the Prequel trilogy. It's the core of those films, the Jedi would not allow themselves to do what needed to be done and thus suffered the consequences.

Yes it's an interesting character, yes it has potential for story telling, yes it can be played that way. But your character concept doesn't protect your character from the reality of life. Where you here telling us about this concept but admitting there would be tough choices based on his moral code we would happily agree. But deciding this character is infallible is just plain boring. That's what PC RPG's are for, that's what board games and novels and movies and fairytales are for.

With 30 years experience you have way more P&P RPG experience than me, yet you sound stuck in the dungeon crawl aspect of the gaming genre. This isn't an adversarial system, this isn't GMvPC gaming, it's a way of telling INTERESTING stories about characters who have to make interesting decisions. That's the core of it. Most people equate interesting with challenging, every option is bad how can I still succeed. Most don't see interesting as just a higher difficulty Skill Check.

Well, First off, I never said Korath was infallible. All I said is that he is devoted to the Light, and has never in either WEG nor RCRB d20 gained even one Dark Side Point. Does he have his faults? Absolutely. Like myself, he is as stubborn as a Gundark (Emotional Strength: Disciplined; Emotional Weakness: "Stubborn"/Obstinate). So, whether or not he'll ever earn any Conflict is up to future games.

My point is that a player should never be put into a situation where no matter their choice they will get Conflict for it. That's railroading . There should always be an "out" to avoid the Conflict points. That being making the "right" call vs the "easy" call of giving in the temptation to use the Dark Side in this instance. As I said, the whole point of how the Morality system works, as I read it, is to make the player choose to make choices between good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong. I agree that "interesting" equals challenging, but if there is no possible chance of avoiding being "punished" with Conflict, that's not "challenging". That's railroading. Remember, the Conflict rules do not say a character has to actually earn Conflict to make a Morality roll at the end of a session. He simply needs to be in situations where Conflict is a possibility . In other words, he has to actually participate in the adventure and have to make moral choices . But no situation should require him to make a decision that will always result in Conflict no matter what choice he makes. There should always be an option that does not result in Conflict.

Tramp, do you honestly find that type of character interesting to play? I mean, really? I know both as a player and a GM, I would be irritated with a character who never faces any real moral dilemmas introduced by Conflict and would likely become uninterested in interacting with the player.

Many a session has had roleplay moments where my Guardian has a philosophical debate with our Sentinel - both of whom are Light-Side Paragons - over the use of the Force in certain situations and the proper course of action. It's so fun, but I could never see that happening with a character such as yours.

Also, as a GM, if you earned no Conflict over and over and over - I would just have you not even bother rolling at the end of the session, because you have nothing to actually resolve within you. You're just... stagnant.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

My point is that a player should never be put into a situation where no matter their choice they will get Conflict for it. That's railroading .

If the GM deliberately tries to put you in those situations over and over again? Yeah sure, that would be railroading.

But if a situation arises where you have to choose the lesser of two evils? That's just... life. It happens, much as we wish it didn't. What defines you is how you come to terms with that.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As I said, the whole point of how the Morality system works, as I read it, is to make the player choose to make choices between good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong.

Expecting a black and white morality in a game specifically designed around the exploration of morality as a concept is not a legitimate stance.

Morality in and of itself is not black and white. Not even in the OT.

Just now, StarkJunior said:

Tramp, do you honestly find that type of character interesting to play? I mean, really? I know both as a player and a GM, I would be irritated with a character who never faces any real moral dilemmas introduced by Conflict and would likely become uninterested in interacting with the player.

Many a session has had roleplay moments where my Guardian has a philosophical debate with our Sentinel - both of whom are Light-Side Paragons - over the use of the Force in certain situations and the proper course of action. It's so fun, but I could never see that happening with a character such as yours.

Also, if you earn no Conflict your Morality can't go up or down. So... yeah.

Reread the rules again StarkJunior. Page 52:

Quote

Cases when Morality Should Not Increase:

Although generally players will resolve their characters' Morality at the end of each session, there are some cases when they should not do so.

If a player was not present at a session, his character's Morality should not have a chance to increase. Similarly, if a character had no chance to do anything in a session, or spent an entire session incapacitated, then his Morality should not increae. This may be the case if a character spends the entire session healing in a bacta tank or stuck in a coma, for example. These cases are likely to be very rare, but a good overall guideline should be that Player Characters should have a chance to earn Conflict (even if they don't take it) if their Morality will have a chance to change.

Nowhere in the rules does it say a player must actually earn Conflict for his Morality to have a chance of going up. They only need to have the chance to earn it.

Yes, I realized that after I posted, hence my edit. I simply have never played a campaign that used Morality where someone never earned Conflict and had their Morality change. Everyone always has at least 1, and usually when they don't, the GM doesn't have them roll, because again - nothing to resolve within them.

Still, RAW =/= RAI.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Reread the rules again StarkJunior. Page 52:

Nowhere in the rules does it say a player must actually earn Conflict for his Morality to have a chance of going up. They only need to have the chance to earn it.

That's not what it says. It says if you do something that would reasonably affect your morality, you should get conflict....

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

That's not what it says. It says if you do something that would reasonably affect your morality, you should get conflict....

Yeah, this.

Conflict =/= WEG or d20 Dark Side Points. This is a much more granular (and admittedly open to interpretation) system. If I had a player who expected to rocket up to 100 Morality and stay there permanently I would seriously pull them aside and ask them to reconsider their character concept.

This system is designed to allow recovery from past wrongs, even minor ones.

I'm going to exit the conversation shortly since this is difference in options had no resolution here, I wish you well Tramp in finding a RL group to play this system with.

8 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

If the GM deliberately tries to put you in those situations over and over again? Yeah sure, that would be railroading.

But if a situation arises where you have to choose the lesser of two evils? That's just... life. It happens, much as we wish it didn't. What defines you is how you come to terms with that.

Except in this case, you don't have a "lesser of two evils". In either case, it's one Conflict.

And regarding earlier statements about this being similar to a "Trial of the Flesh", maybe those people should reread page 95 of Nexus of Power.

Quote

Trial of the Flesh

While this trial historically involved physical pain, it was later adjusted to focus on sacrifice and commitment to the light side. GMs looking to use a vergence for this trial should create a vision tide to the characters' backgrounds, forcing PCs to choose between protecting the objects of their attachments or sacrificing themselves and the beings they're attached to for the greater good. This can usually be accomplished with a Cool or Discipline check.

Thus, if the example of choosing between using the Dark Side to save a friend, or not using the Dark Side even if it means potentially sacrificing said friend is a trial of the flesh, then passing said trial would mean not giving in to the temptation to use the Dark Side, even if it means sacrificing said friend.

Passing the trial isn't not using the dark side. Passing the trial is grappling with what it truly means to commit to only using the light side.... to truly commit to only using the light side means a lifetime of conflict. It means that you'll be put in these situations your whole life and you have to meet them head on. THAT'S what taking conflict is. Use the dark side in that trial? 10 conflict. Lose the body part after personal struggle and a concious decision that you must keep to the light? 1 conflict, and you get to move your morality up the scale. Just using the light side because you've been told to? Worthless.

I'll tell you right here and now Tramp if you let another Player Character fall without a prior agreement that said character was being retired when you could could have saved them with Darkside points that would be the last session I would ever play with you. There's playing to your character and then there's being a good role player and those things are not the same. Now if it was an NPC it would be my PC who would probably walk away, I can't ever even imagine playing such a morally immoral character.

14 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

That's not what it says. It says if you do something that would reasonably affect your morality, you should get conflict....

Dunefarble, I just provided a specific quote from the book. It specifically states that you only need to have a chance to earn Conflict, even if you don't take it , in order to enable you to roll your Morality at the end of the session. You do not need to actually Earn Conflict, you simply need to be in situations where earning Conflict is a possibility . The choice to actually earn Conflict is up to the character by whether he makes the morally correct choice or the morally incorrect choice. If he makes the morally wrong choice he earns Conflict, if he makes the morally right choice he earns no Conflict. If all of his choices that session were the Morally right choices, he earns no Conflict that session, and his Morality is guaranteed to go up at least by one. The only time he should not be able to roll for Morality is if he did absolutely nothing that session because he was incapacitated in some way or the player was not there that session. That is what the rules specifically state on page 52 of the F&D core rule book.

Quote

These cases are likely to be very rare, but a good overall guideline should be that Player Characters should have a chance to earn Conflict (even if they don't take it) if their Morality will have a chance to change. --(F&D core rule book page 52)

That is word for word from the core rule book. You do not need to actually earn Conflict for your Morality to change. You only need to be in situations where earning Conflict is possible .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's "awarded" for giving in to the temptation to do wrong, for giving in to your emotional weaknesses, for using the Dark Side when activating Force powers. It's a consequence that can lead to the Dark Side. It's not a "boon" unless you're actually trying to turn your character to a Dark Side character. For anyone who seeks the Light, it is indeed a "punishment".

In a scenario like that the character would not gain any conflict. That is because he did go to save people. Whether or not he could save everyone is not the issue. He acted when he needed to, and didn't give in to the Dark Side to do it either. That is how the Force looks at things. The Force is pretty black and white, even if society isn't.

Actually, I cut my teeth on the old First edition D&D, Second ed AD&D, R Talsorian Games Interlock system ( Cyperpunk 2020 , Mekton , etc), and WEG SW games. As I said before, I've been gaming for well over 30 years.

Yes, it is accurate according to the book itself. On page 280, for instance it says,

So, based upon this passage alone it is clear that yes, the black pips are Dark Side Force Points , and using them is giving in to the temptations of the Dark Side, as per RAW. And, also based upon that reading, any character who does not give in to that temptation, regardless of any other consequences of that, should never get Conflict as a result.

In the scenario of a person trying to save a friend from falling, and rolls nothing by Dark Side results, by RAW, if he does not give in to the temptation to use the Dark Side, you have this result in the narrative:

And in this scenario, I would spend a Destiny Point to instead introduce a small ledge a few meters down upon which the falling friend could land. And, would fall under the Common Sense use since both cliffs and many buildings do have such ledges or balconies which could potentially save a falling person.

In scenario two where you do give in:

By RAW, Dark Side pips are discarded as matter of course unless you specifically give in to the temptation to use them, and therefore should never be penalized with Conflict for not giving in to that temptation. There should never be a situation where the character will always get Conflict no matter what choice they make. And, as far as the "Knowing inaction" Conflict result, you might want to go and reread that on the chart on page 324. The Knowing inaction result only covers a character knowingly allowing another PC or NPC to commit evil. It does not cover a character failing to catch a falling person, for lack of Light Side Force points or any such thing. To quote:

There is nothing in there about not saving someone from falling, or other accidental injuries. And even the RAW penalty for knowing inaction is only one Conflict.

Regardless, a character should never be in a situation where no matter what choice he makes he gets Conflict. There must always be a choice that does not result in Conflict. That's the whole point of the Morality system, to allow the players to choose between the Light and the Dark, between good and evil; to test their morality, their emotional strengths and weaknesses, and choose whether they'll stand firm with their strength or give in to their weakness resulting in Conflict. To stand firm to the Light is not a weakness. Giving in the the Dark for easy power is.

And you just proved you know nothing about what conflict represents. I suggest you take a step back. Stop assuming you know and reread and listen to the devs again. Because you are about as far off base as youncan get.

4 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Passing the trial isn't not using the dark side. Passing the trial is grappling with what it truly means to commit to only using the light side.... to truly commit to only using the light side means a lifetime of conflict. It means that you'll be put in these situations your whole life and you have to meet them head on. THAT'S what taking conflict is. Use the dark side in that trial? 10 conflict. Lose the body part after personal struggle and a concious decision that you must keep to the light? 1 conflict, and you get to move your morality up the scale. Just using the light side because you've been told to? Worthless.

No. earning Conflict is making the wrong moral choice in a given situation , and suffering the consequences, either learning from it and potentially being the better for it or spiraling down further into evil. You earn Conflict for doing wrong, not doing what's right.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

These cases are likely to be very rare, but a good overall guideline should be that Player Characters should have a chance to earn Conflict (even if they don't take it) if their Morality will have a chance to change. --(F&D core rule book page 52)

That is my point!!!! If your character's morality could change, up or down, you should have a chance to earn conflict. If you didn't do jack ****, then your morality won't change and you don't get conflict!!!

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. earning Conflict is making the wrong moral choice in a given situation , and suffering the consequences, either learning from it and potentially being the better for it or spiraling down further into evil. You earn Conflict for doing wrong, not doing what's right.

No it is not. Reread.the chapter on it. Conflict is about being conflicted about the choice you made nothing more.

I'm out. If anyone needs me I'll be looking at baby animal pictures in a desperate attempt to bring down my blood pressure.

6 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

I'll tell you right here and now Tramp if you let another Player Character fall without a prior agreement that said character was being retired when you could could have saved them with Darkside points that would be the last session I would ever play with you. There's playing to your character and then there's being a good role player and those things are not the same. Now if it was an NPC it would be my PC who would probably walk away, I can't ever even imagine playing such a morally immoral character.

I don't disagree there. But I think you're really missing the whole point I've been trying to make in the minutia of the specific situation. First, that situation should never come up in the game in the first place. The player always needs to be able to make the actual "right call" that will not earn him Conflict, In this scenario, he has to be able to save his friend somehow without using the Dark Side, even if his Force Dice roll ended up all black pips. Failing to be able to use the Force for lack of Light Side is not grounds for making him choose between the life of his friend and using the Dark Side to save him. As the two scenarios I gave above show, if he doesn't use the Dark Side and fails to catch his friend, that is no fault of the character. Per RAW, he still activated the power, but the power failed him. That's not the same thing as just standing their and watching the character fall. Using the black Pips means giving in to fear, and thus giving in to the Dark Side to grab your friend. And, like I said, as a player, instead of just letting the other character fall, I would preferably spend a Destiny Point to save him some other way. And any good GM should certainly allow that.

11 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

That is my point!!!! If your character's morality could change, up or down, you should have a chance to earn conflict. If you didn't do jack ****, then your morality won't change and you don't get conflict!!!

Except that is not what you said . You said a player character has to actually earn Conflict.

If, during the session, a character is in a situation where he has to make a moral choice, then if said choice allows him to avoid Conflict because he made the right moral choice, (not because he did jack squat the whole session), his Morality will go up at the end of the session because he had the chance to earn Conflict, but made the right choices and thus didn't actually earn any. Therefore, he still gets to roll Morality with a guaranteed positive result.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As the two scenarios I gave above show, if he doesn't use the Dark Side and fails to catch his friend, that is no fault of the character.

It is, because he made the choice not to suffer a little darkness (that he could then meditate on and overcome spiritually) to save an innocent life. It's the trolly car scenario. Having the trolly car run over the one person isn't the right decision, and neither is having it run over the five people. There IS no right decision, that's the whole meaning of the word dilemma:

Quote

dilemma

dɪˈlɛmə , dʌɪˈlɛmə /

noun

1. a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.

The idea that you'll never come across a dilemma in your time of play is ludicrous.

As a fun side note, as a GM I would relish those times when you fail fear checks and take Conflict, just so I could watch you try to argue why you shouldn't suffer any.

Alright - save one or save a million - which one is morally right?

38 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Alright - save one or save a million - which one is morally right?

Exactly.