I've got a party made up of 2 greenhorn roleplayers. One is a F&D character whose mission is to investigate the Jedi order and revive it. The other is a AoR character, and so doesn't have a Morality score. The AoR player seems to be falling into the new player trap of assuming every antagonist thrown their way needs to die (why else would he have a gun?).

Case in point, last night, our second session, the PCs are being chased by Imperial Navy troopers. They stop and fight, and win. The two minion groups were all "down" (not explicitly dead or alive, just out of the fight). So before moving on, the AoR player decides to put a blaster shot into each of them to "finish the job". Super Dark Side, right?

At the end of the session I gave the F&D player 2 conflict for standing by and watching this happen. This was mostly a "this is what Conflict is and here's how it works at the end of the session" thing, but I'm worried this kind of thing is going to happen a lot. The F&D player seems more than willing to accept non-lethal solutions to things but the AoR is shaping up to be a classic "kill all the things" player. Given he's not a Force user, there's no immediate, mechanical way to discourage this kind of behavior. It seems a little outside the spirit of the rules for a non-force user to be the group's guy-who-does-things-paragons-can't, but at the same time I don't really want to generate intra-party tension by giving Conflict for another character's choices.

Am I making too much of this? Was this an appropriate use of Conflict? Our next session has a lot of potential for more of this so I'll need a game plan for how to handle it (we're doing the AoR rulebook adventure, assaulting the bridge of M226).

If you want to reign in the AoR player a bit have Alliance NPCs react badly to news he's executing "prisoners".

That's not what the Alliance stands for and military and civilian leadership don't want their agents doing such things as a regular course of action (such things might make more sense if the campaign were built around Rebel Intelligence like Rogue One).

Maybe it will affect Duty rewards as this reflects the PCs standing in the Alliance.

Alliance leadership warning the PC about such future action (with Duty losses later if the behavior continues) seems like an approach that gets the point across without being too heavy handed.

If you don't think the player will react well to this in game then I'd instead discuss it with them privately outside the game.

I'd say it was a fair application of conflict in the circumstances described.

If there are no immediate complaints, stay the course, and let it play out and see what happens for a couple of sessions. The F&D player may do something in-character next time around something like this happens (and consider increasing the amount of conflict each time they don't).

Consequences for excessive force is something that could be used.

And keep in mind that sometimes some players are murder hobos.

Definitely a fair use of Conflict. And if you're worried about the AoR player turning full murderhobo, consider piling on some Obligation if this behaviour continues. Criminal is good, and so is Bounty. Bad Reputation would also work, as would Collateral Accountability.

At the point in the game, the only thing I'd recommend is that you talk to both players and ascertain if this is the kind of tone they are happy with—Rebel killing Imps, Force user standing by. It's okay if they want to try and plan some character development around it, like the Jedi-type player could try and "redeem" his compatriot, or the Rebel could influence the Force user to take a slightly more shadowed path (not necessarily going full-blown dark side).

If they are simply okay with the status quo and see no need to change anything, then eventually an Obligation like @Krieger22 suggested would be suitable for the group (not just the Rebel PC) so as to keep some tension there.

I'd go the talking route and just make sure the players are on the same page as you are in regards to killing downed opponents.

Rebels can lose duty gains if they don't stay on mission, and you can always just tack on a hearts and minds directive to their orders. Have command chew them out for bolstering enemy resolve by convincing all the imperial grunts who might surrender or defect that they will be killed if they do so.

It may be hard to convince him that these actions are inappropriate when we see this happen even in the Star Wars movies. Baze straight up does this exact same thing. No, he's not in the Rebellion, but he is a main character, and after the fighting is over he calmly walks up to a prone stormtrooper, charges his uber-gun, and headshots him.

To curtail this, I like Aetrion's idea. There's something to be said for not making martyrs out of your opponents. "Dammit Johnson! We can't convince the people of Saathooine that we are better than the Empire, if our methods aren't ANY BETTER than the Empire!"

An extreme method could be to use non-lethal force to subdue your two PCs, stun grenades, toxic smoke, stun batons.... and then have the stormtroopers say, "Hey. This is <PC's name>. Screw him." Headshot death. No, I don't REALLY recommend that, it would suck as a player, but it might be appropriate.

Heh, this idea just popped into my head. Make him the face of the new Imperial Recruitment poster. Next session, start out at the base and have an update come through on the Holonet. "Citizens of the Empire. Look now, and see the face of the terrorists." <Holo-Footage of your PC executing stormtroopers> "Join now! Stop this atrocity! Bring peace and security to your home and the Empire!" Have him receive glares from the other rebel operatives or something. You can even extend this as far as you want to make trouble for him. Have him see it every so often on other worlds, but you could make sure other people see it as well. Have merchants back out of deals or refuse to do business with him. To upgrade, have them report him to authorities. His contacts could decide he's too hot to deal with. The Rebellion itself could break contacts, saying they don't need another Saw Gerrera. I don't think I would recommend going this far, but showing consequences for his actions is a great motivator for curbing such action.

17 hours ago, cps said:

Am I making too much of this? Was this an appropriate use of Conflict? Our next session has a lot of potential for more of this so I'll need a game plan for how to handle it (we're doing the AoR rulebook adventure, assaulting the bridge of M226).

Nope, I'd say you pretty much got the amount right on the nose. Not a lot of Conflict, but a little for standing by while his companion does questionable acts.

You mention using mechanical means to discourage this sort of thing; keep in mind that that's not what Conflict is meant to accomplish. It's perfectly viable for a PC to be 0 morality and still play the game. There are drawbacks and advantages to this (both mechanical and narrative), but it's not out of the question.

When it comes to trying to get your party to be a little less murderhoboish, people have mentioned some pretty goods solutions: hit 'em in the Duty, hit 'em in the narrative. The Alliance dislikes extremists who go for body counts over objectives and reinforce the Empire's message that the Rebels are bloodthirsty killers out to topple all peace and order in the galaxy.

And, also as people mentioned, it's always good to let them know OOC that this isn't DnD and these aren't just a bunch of monsters just hanging around in the a dungeon, they're _people._ Enemies, sure, but still people. Going out of your way to finish them off it pretty brutal, and if they want to go that route the Force User needs to know that he'll either have to keep his friend on track or be stuck with yellow eyes.

10 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

And, also as people mentioned, it's always good to let them know OOC that this isn't DnD and these aren't just a bunch of monsters just hanging around in the a dungeon, they're _people._ Enemies, sure, but still people. Going out of your way to finish them off it pretty brutal, and if they want to go that route the Force User needs to know that he'll either have to keep his friend on track or be stuck with yellow eyes.

+melodrama! Next time he kills a stormtrooper post-battle.

"From far back in a nearby alleyway, you hear a high pitched scream. It cries out, "Noo!" Then, a 6 year old youngling, dressed all in rags save for what appear to be brand new boots, comes running out from behind her hiding space. "Daddy!" Long hair streaming behind her, she throws herself onto the armored corpse of the stormtrooper, crying uncontrollably, shouting at the dead body. "Daddy! Daddy wake up! Daddy! DADDY!!" She hits the scorched white shell of his chest, then covers the black blast mark on his helmet with her hands, trying anything her child's mind can think of to revive the soldier you just executed. She doesn't even acknowledge your existence, just cries over the fallen body of her father."

Have the down-but-alive enemies writhe in pain and beg for mercy. You know those scenes in movies when someone begs for their life listing the names of their spouse and their kids, etc? See how that affects the characters/players.

Remember that Star Wars *does* humanize even Stormtroopers. They're not emotionless murder machines, they're dudes talking about that awesome new motorcycle when they're bored on guard duty.

24 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

And, also as people mentioned, it's always good to let them know OOC that this isn't DnD and these aren't just a bunch of monsters just hanging around in the a dungeon, they're _people._ Enemies, sure, but still people. Going out of your way to finish them off it pretty brutal, and if they want to go that route the Force User needs to know that he'll either have to keep his friend on track or be stuck with yellow eyes.

Goblins and kobolds could get the same treatment as stormtroopers, and vice versa, but these are all sapient beings. If a GM knows how to bring out the "humanity" of DnD races, then this can go a long way towards humanizing the enemies in his Star Wars campaign, especially those with covered faces and identical uniforms.

I say this specifically because the player is stopping to execute his downed opponents. This behavior is kinda dark for Star Wars, and so the humanity piece might be more needed than it would normally be...like if PCs in their fantasy setting were slaughtering entire tribes of goblinoids.

Just now, awayputurwpn said:

Goblins and kobolds could get the same treatment as stormtroopers, and vice versa, but these are all sapient beings. If a GM knows how to bring out the "humanity" of DnD races, then this can go a long way towards humanizing the enemies IV his Star Wars campaign, especially those with masks.

I say this specifically because the player is stopping to execute his downed opponents. This behavior is kinda dark for Star Wars, and so the humanity piece might be more needed than it would normally be...like if PCs in their fantasy setting were slaughtering entire tribes of goblinoids.

I was thinking more along the lines of Gelatinous cubes and skeletons when I wrote that. Heck, even the goblinoid races generally had that "Always Chaotic Evil" line that was a source of much debate among players and GMs. But Stormtroopers are both sapient and not shoehorned into being evil by default, even if they're being employed to spread and enforce an evil Empire. Crix Madine was leader of an elite stormtrooper unit (the Storm Commandos) and he eventually wound up with the Rebellion, after all.

To approach the potential problem from a different direction, two more suggestions:

1) make your PCs' attacks more obviously lethal. If they're using non-stun weaponry, then out-and-out kill more of their opponents. Limbs splayed awkwardly, blown-apart armor, blaster burns in the right places, perhaps a bit of exsanguination (if the weapon used calls for it). Make it plain that the PCs are wasting their time putting extra blaster bolts in bodies.

2) have reinforcements en route. The PCs need all the time they can get to run away! If they're faffing around with downed enemies, they might get caught and engaged by more enemies—or a chase scene ensues, with the PCs uncomfortably close to their pursuers. If you want a bit less darkness in the narrative, and you want more adventure, this could be a good strategy to employ when it would make sense (like most of the time with stormtroopers).

On 2/20/2017 at 5:05 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

If you want to reign in the AoR player a bit have Alliance NPCs react badly to news he's executing "prisoners".

That's not what the Alliance stands for and military and civilian leadership don't want their agents doing such things as a regular course of action (such things might make more sense if the campaign were built around Rebel Intelligence like Rogue One).

Maybe it will affect Duty rewards as this reflects the PCs standing in the Alliance.

Alliance leadership warning the PC about such future action (with Duty losses later if the behavior continues) seems like an approach that gets the point across without being too heavy handed.

If you don't think the player will react well to this in game then I'd instead discuss it with them privately outside the game.

There were a few suggestions along these lines and I think this is the best way to go. They may well choose to go full-Saw, but having seen the movie they'll definitely understand there are some things the Rebellion simply can't endorse. The F&D player doesn't seem to have too many qualms about going dark side so this campaign may turn into them becoming rogue anti-Empire terrorists. Thanks for the input everyone!

On 2/21/2017 at 11:10 AM, R5D8 said:

"Daddy! Daddy wake up! Daddy! DADDY!!"

This is dark as frak and I'm definitely not doing this.

29 minutes ago, cps said:

This is dark as frak and I'm definitely not doing this.

I think that was a joke. However, you COULD do a more sensible version: have trooper call each other out by name (or nickname) as they go down. "Blink! Blink is down!" "Scrag got hit! MEDIC!" Just little verbal hints that the NPCs they're slaughtering are more than just faceless mooks.

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I think that was a joke. However, you COULD do a more sensible version: have trooper call each other out by name (or nickname) as they go down. "Blink! Blink is down!" "Scrag got hit! MEDIC!" Just little verbal hints that the NPCs they're slaughtering are more than just faceless mooks.

"Two days before he was going to retire ..... **** Rebel scum."

"Fritz?! They killed Fritz! Those dirty, stinking rebels killed Fritz!"

pewpewpew