In my current adventure, my PCs have discovered that the mystery cargo they've been contracted to haul is a group of slaves. The slavers have instructed the droid enforcers surrounding the group of slaves to start killing the slaves if the PCs don't comply with their demands. I was thinking this would give the Force-sensitives in our group some pause, but they've decided to rush the slavers instead and try to kill them all before they have a chance to kill the slaves. I won't say their plan can't succeed, but there is a high chance that at least one slave will get injured or killed.

This leads to a problem--how much conflict should the Force-sensitives get for this kind of collateral damage? I'm not really sure if I should give out conflict on a per-slave basis, say 3 points of conflict if a slave is injured, 4 points for a death, or if I should give them a significant amount of conflict, say 7-8 points, and go from there.

Any thoughts from other gamemasters about the best way to handle this? Thanks.

If I was GM I would not hand out Conflict for "collateral damage" in this scenario because to me collateral damage is destruction (and perhaps death) caused by unconsidered or uncaring PC actions, where no or little thought is given to the side-effects of actions taken. In your scenario slaves being killed means that the PCs plan failed to some degree - they didn't eliminate the slavers fast enough. But they are trying to rescue the slaves. If their attack plan was really reckless and aggressive in a way that flirted with the dark side I'd hand out Conflict but not for slaves being killed in a difficult situation where the PCs are trying to rescue the slaves.

What are the Slavers demands?

I think it's very important to your question whether or not the "alternative" is actually a viable alternative, or if you just forces their hand.

What are the slavers' demands? Something beyond 'deliver the goods as per the contract'?

I guess it depends if there are other (reasonable) options on the table. If they jumped straight to " That was your plan, Ray? " - then yeah, slap 'em with conflict. But if they've stopped and planned and figured out some other angles before dismissing them as not workable plans, then I wouldn't. Or if I did - one or two at the most.

Yea, I agree it comes down to what the demands of the slavers are. If they are offering the PCs a way to peacefully resolve the situation and the PCs are attacking out of pure ego because they just want to win in every encounter they should definitely take huge conflict for any deaths that causes. If they are trying to blackmail the PCs into doing even worse things on the other hand attacking them might be justified.

I more or less agree with the others in that "it depends."

This sort of situation really gets into the nitty-gritty of both ethics and Jedi philosophy, so care is required to deal with these kinds of encounters.

Did the PCs act impetuously and/or with reckless disregard for the safety of the slaves? Conflict. Jedi put others before themselves. Acting rashly without careful consideration for the consequences on other people, whether intentional or not, leads to the Dark Side.

Did the PCs ignore or otherwise fail to consider peaceful, non-violent solutions? Conflict. Jedi act for knowledge or defense, including defense of others. That may justify a pre-emptive attack on the slavers, but it also may not, depending on the situation. Hostage negotiation should be a priority concern, because the hostages' safety is paramount. Violence is only called for if negotiating would put the hostages at greater risk than attacking the slavers. Simply attacking without even considering non-violent solutions is the path to the Dark Side.

I would generally advise caution as the GM in presenting these kinds of situations. If you intend a simplistic Scooby Doo style of "heroes deal with the baddies and rescue the hostages!" that's totally fine, but then such an approach tends to encourage taking out the bad guys with little actual threat of the hostages being killed. If you intend something more complex, with moral dilemmas and ethical challenges, that's fine too, but it needs to be carefully thought through to its conclusion. If, on the other hand, you are only putting this in as a roadblock for the PCs, in a mustache-twirling "A-ha! You can't attack me because you're the good guys and I have hostages!" move, you're probably going to be in for an unsatisfying session (either for you or for the players).

Whew...there's a lot of good questions here, and I have to admit I haven't thought of all the answers. I'd like to reply to everyone personally, but I think it's best if I just provide all the details in one post:

The basic plan of the slavers is to get the PCs to disarm, lock them up in their own ship with the slaves and transport them to a rendevous where the slaves will be taken to one location and the ship will be flown to a chop shop somewhere else. Which definitely will make the PCs want to fight back. I added the slaves as hostages so the PCs would have a moral dilemma on their hands--do they fight the slavers directly and risk slaves getting hurt or killed, or do they play along until the slavers are onboard their ship, retake their gear, and then fight?

The slavers have already announced that at the first sign of resistance the enforcer droids should start firing on the slaves, and their demands have steadily gotten higher and higher until they asked the PCs to turn over their weapons, which was the breaking point.

Also, to answer BCGaius, this was supposed to be one part roadblock one part moral challenge. They're pretty experienced characters right now, so I want them to have correspondingly difficult challenges.

How do the player characters know they will be fine after they're taken prisoner? How do they know the hostages will be fine? As GM, you may know that you intend to let them escape, but for the PCs, they are being put in an untenable position. If they give up their weapons and surrender, they surrender their only leverage over the slavers, and put not only themselves but potentially the hostages as well at further risk.

It might help to think of the PCs like police or SWAT in this case. Would a SWAT team drop their weapons and willingly surrender to a bunch of hostage takers, even if this is demanded by the hostage takers? No. In fact, I might give Conflict to a Jedi PC who does this, because they've run afoul of point #1 I listed above by acting rashly, on emotion rather than ethical decision-making, and put everyone at risk by doing so. They've succumbed to fear -- fear that others might be hurt if they don't comply with a dangerous enemy's demands.

A Jedi of sound mind and character, I think, would act not unlike a SWAT hostage negotiator -- "I'm sorry, but we both know I can't put my weapon down. And I know you can't either. But let's work together, and try to get you what you want."

This is the sort of thing I mean by thinking these kinds of scenarios through very carefully, because they're fraught with both ethical peril and the potential for a very sour game session if it puts the players in an uncomfortable situation by GM fiat.

Check out that episode of Clone Wars with Obi-Wan's girlfriend and the journey on that cruise ship or whatever it was. It ends with a hostage situation, and shows the radically different ways Obi-Wan and Anakin act in that situation. Might give you some ideas on how to handle conflict. Obi-Wan is obviously in distress and wants to end things without people dying. Anakin... well, he takes a more dispassionate view.

10 hours ago, Hysteria said:

The basic plan of the slavers is to get the PCs to disarm, lock them up in their own ship with the slaves and transport them to a rendevous where the slaves will be taken to one location and the ship will be flown to a chop shop somewhere else. Which definitely will make the PCs want to fight back. I added the slaves as hostages so the PCs would have a moral dilemma on their hands--do they fight the slavers directly and risk slaves getting hurt or killed, or do they play along until the slavers are onboard their ship, retake their gear, and then fight?

The slavers have already announced that at the first sign of resistance the enforcer droids should start firing on the slaves, and their demands have steadily gotten higher and higher until they asked the PCs to turn over their weapons, which was the breaking point.

Assuming they've already tried their social skills (Influence Power, simple Negotiation, etc. and failed), and depending on the PCs ability to withdraw from the encounter, track/know where the slavers are headed, regroup, and try again - this really isn't much of a choice. The slaver "offer" isn't really a viable alternative IMO. They disarm and they're just gonna have fewer tools to try and accomplish the same thing.

So, if they can't simply retreat, AND have a means to track the slavers or know where they're going, I'd say itd be a jerk-move to give them more than a couple Conflict for the encounter - no per slave death basis.

On 4/4/2017 at 10:28 AM, Hysteria said:

In my current adventure, my PCs have discovered that the mystery cargo they've been contracted to haul is a group of slaves. The slavers have instructed the droid enforcers surrounding the group of slaves to start killing the slaves if the PCs don't comply with their demands. I was thinking this would give the Force-sensitives in our group some pause, but they've decided to rush the slavers instead and try to kill them all before they have a chance to kill the slaves. I won't say their plan can't succeed, but there is a high chance that at least one slave will get injured or killed.

This leads to a problem--how much conflict should the Force-sensitives get for this kind of collateral damage? I'm not really sure if I should give out conflict on a per-slave basis, say 3 points of conflict if a slave is injured, 4 points for a death, or if I should give them a significant amount of conflict, say 7-8 points, and go from there.

Any thoughts from other gamemasters about the best way to handle this? Thanks.

Honestly, this reads a bit like a Paladin Screw-Job, in that you as the GM are determined to hand out Conflict no matter what the PCs do.

And that is the absolute WORST approach to take, as you are more likely than not to brass of your players for that kind of jerk move.

You pretty much painted the PCs into a corner, and gave them little to no choice on what to do. To be frank, so long as the PCs made some effort at diplomacy before opting for "aggressive negotiations," then I probably wouldn't assign the PCs any amount of Conflict; if the PCs immediately go on the offensive without trying to find a non-violent solution, I'd assign 2 Conflict to those PCs at the absolute maximum. They're not really the ones that are choosing to kill those slaves, as it's a decision the slavers made, so assigning Conflict purely for the death of any slaves by the droids is again a jerk move on the GM's part.

I once saw Paladin Screw-Job open for Iron Maiden. It was pretty epic.

Wasn't that where Shawn Michaels forced Bret Hart to tap out despite not actually tapping out?

8 hours ago, Desslok said:

Wasn't that where Shawn Michaels forced Bret Hart to tap out despite not actually tapping out?

Maybe...I think it's where Obi-wan kenobi taped his fists and made sure Michaels lost the next match he was supposed to, but I'm not sure.

10 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Honestly, this reads a bit like a Paladin Screw-Job, in that you as the GM are determined to hand out Conflict no matter what the PCs do.

And that is the absolute WORST approach to take, as you are more likely than not to brass of your players for that kind of jerk move.

You pretty much painted the PCs into a corner, and gave them little to no choice on what to do. To be frank, so long as the PCs made some effort at diplomacy before opting for "aggressive negotiations," then I probably wouldn't assign the PCs any amount of Conflict; if the PCs immediately go on the offensive without trying to find a non-violent solution, I'd assign 2 Conflict to those PCs at the absolute maximum. They're not really the ones that are choosing to kill those slaves, as it's a decision the slavers made, so assigning Conflict purely for the death of any slaves by the droids is again a jerk move on the GM's part.

Okay...that's a good point. Darn...

Here's the thing--it's a mixed group that has about 400xp, with a force-sensitive PC that has really not had a ton of situations that could generate conflict. I was thinking that in this situation, the PCs can take the slavers on and win, but fighting will incur some collateral damage that they could otherwise avoid. I wasn't thinking "screw over the PC with morality," more "present them with a difficult choice the rule books are always suggesting we do.

The best/easiest way (though not the only way) to focus on the Morality mechanic of a F&D character is by temptation . Tempt the PC with the quick and easy path. The right thing to do is harder and less rewarding in the short term.

This can be purely ethical, or it can employ the game's mystical mechanics. Offer advantages to the PC if they indulge in the Dark Side or otherwise flirt with Conflict. Make them want Conflict... or at least, the benefits you're offering in exchange. Remind them on those Force rolls that their Foresee attempt could give them an additional glimpse at the Big Bad's defenses and vulnerabilities... and it would only cost a point of Conflict or two to use those dark pips...

Give them an option/opportunity to turn the droid enforcers on the slavers themselves which is very easy and very obvious, and saves the hostages to boot... but would also necessitate setting the droids' kill-protocols into overdrive so they ruthlessly, mercilessly gun down every slaver, even if the slavers surrender under the onslaught. Give them that easy option (making sure to make it clear that it would also probably be morally questionable), so that the harder option of negotiating/a tactical takedown to save the hostages is more meaningful. If they choose the quick and easy path, then you're in Conflict City.

On 4/5/2017 at 8:53 PM, BCGaius said:

Give them an option/opportunity to turn the droid enforcers on the slavers themselves which is very easy and very obvious, and saves the hostages to boot... but would also necessitate setting the droids' kill-protocols into overdrive so they ruthlessly, mercilessly gun down every slaver, even if the slavers surrender under the onslaught.

I like this idea, because as a player, I would absolutely take this option, and not complain one bit about the Conflict dump I'd be taking.

Hurray for murder in any case. Does not matter if you count the dead slaver bodies or the dead slave bodies. Just hand out the conflict. I recommend to cap it, because you do not want them to switch over to the darkside based on one decision. ;-)

On 4/4/2017 at 10:04 AM, Jedi Ronin said:

If I was GM I would not hand out Conflict for "collateral damage" in this scenario because to me collateral damage is destruction (and perhaps death) caused by unconsidered or uncaring PC actions, where no or little thought is given to the side-effects of actions taken. In your scenario slaves being killed means that the PCs plan failed to some degree - they didn't eliminate the slavers fast enough. But they are trying to rescue the slaves. If their attack plan was really reckless and aggressive in a way that flirted with the dark side I'd hand out Conflict but not for slaves being killed in a difficult situation where the PCs are trying to rescue the slaves.

I dunno, what you described as your definition of collateral damage sounds exactly like what the players are doing. I mean, how often in movies do the heroes rush the badguy when an innocent is in danger? Not often? Why? Because deciding to attack, with little to no thought given to the side-effects of actions taken is how innocent hostages get killed. The trope, is for them to not attack, because, and this is important the risk of failure is too great, and the result is the death of an innocent, something they are sworn to protect.

Personally, I would totally give out conflict, if they completely disregarded the threat posed to the hostages, and decided to attack anyway. That's not the actions of a hero, that's the actions of a murder hobo, who only gets off on rolling dice and seeing a body count. A real hero would...oh I don't know, try and use social skills to talk down the slaver, perhaps convincing him to take one of them as a hostage instead, and letting the slaves go. Or perhaps using Force Influence to try and convince the slaver to not take this course of action. Or perhaps use Move to ****** the kill switch from his hands. Or, perhaps use slicing covertly to try and disable the method by which the slaves would be killed. Etc etc. I mean, this doesn't seem like a hard choice here.

While I do not subscribe to the villain logic of "You forced my hand, thus YOU killed the person I shot in the head" kind of guilt tripping you see in stories. In the end, the person who did the killing is at fault. But that doesn't exonerate the other party from involvement entirely. They knew what the possible ramification of their actions would be, and knew the course of action they were choosing was the most likely course to end with innocent deaths. And they took it anyway. To say they are 100% blameless is foolish, and they should know better. And if the players try and haggle with you about why it's not their fault, and they shouldn't get Conflict, smack them upside the head for being dooshnozzles.

As to how much Conflict to assign, I'd say at least a few points less than murder. If there is an entry on the chart for "taking reckless actions that cause someone injury/death" then give them at much, because that's basically exactly what they did.

A true Paragon, would extinguish their saber, drop it to the ground, and cease any actions that might risk innocent lives. This is Star Wars, the black and white's of actions for good/bad guys is pretty straightforward.

28 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

As to how much Conflict to assign, I'd say at least a few points less than murder.

Why?
The lives of the slaves and slavers were perfectly save before the action of the characters. Furthermore, they obviously went in with the intention to murder those slavers to enforce their beliefs over the beliefs of the slavers. A classical darkside action. And this is not one case, but multiple, which requires anyway some form of reduction of the conflict on the final roll anyway, so handing out here to full points and cap the change of morally on the dice roll afterwards sounds fair enough. At this point the dead slaves become just the icing on top of this delicious murderous cake.

There is a reason why the jedi not just went to tatooine and rescued all the slaves by force and there is a difference between trying to reason and acting by force. This is a case when the PCs decided to use the easy way and force someone into submission by lethal force. Indeed, it does not get more murderhobo than that.

7 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Why?
The lives of the slaves and slavers were perfectly save before the action of the characters.

Correct, and then they acted, and now the lives are at risk, or already ended. Thus, their actions, contributed to the deaths of those slaves. They didn't directly kill them themselves, but they knew the potential consequences of their actions, and chose to take that risk anyway. Since conflict isn't just a Dark Side Cookie, and it reflects someone taking actions that can cause moral and personal conflict I can promise you that someone who did something that lead to the deaths of a few dozen people, would be conflicted about it. That's not something normally adjusted people just shrug off. That's the kind of thing that can potentially haunt someone for life.

9 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Furthermore, they obviously went in with the intention to murder those slavers to enforce their beliefs over the beliefs of the slavers. A classical darkside action. And this is not one case, but multiple, which requires anyway some form of reduction of the conflict on the final roll anyway, so handing out here to full points and cap the change of morally on the dice roll afterwards sounds fair enough. At this point the dead slaves become just the icing on top of this delicious murderous cake.

There is a reason why the jedi not just went to tatooine and rescued all the slaves by force and there is a difference between trying to reason and acting by force. This is a case when the PCs decided to use the easy way and force someone into submission by lethal force. Indeed, it does not get more murderhobo than that.

Because there is a difference in them taking an action that has a consequence of killing a village of sandpeople, and cutting their heads off themselves . I'm not saying they should get away with a minor amount, but there is a distinction, supported by the chart's wording itself, in you causing something to happen in a secondary fashion, and doing it yourself on purpose. I think the amount for murder is 10+ right? I'm saying, for something like this, they should get at least like 8 points. They knowingly, and willingly chose the dangerous route, and this should be reflected by the Conflict results. I never said anything else. But the fact that they chose that route, with the intent to try and save the slaves lives, is an important distinction to consider. There have been plenty of stories of heroes that are too reckless and careless with innocent lives, and the negative consequences of taking the "Maverick Approach" to every situation. It usually is depicted by innocent people dying as a result, and this seriously impacting the hero. Usually forcing them into a depression state, and donning a Beard of Sorrow for a while. So it's not without precedent for them to do this, thinking they are being the Big **** Heroes. And if it fails, then they will be conflicted about the outcome. But, and this is also reflected in this trope in other media. They are usually brought out of the Beard of Sorrow state, by someone reminding them that they weren't the ones that killed them, and they were trying to do the right thing, and made a costly mistake. And that the best thing they can do to make ammends, is get back out there and do better next time. To not let their deaths be in vain. etc etc. I'm sure you know the kind of scene I'm talking about. It's pretty ubiquitous in action movies. That's this scenario in a nutshell. Which is totally different from them going in, intending to kill the slaves. Intent is important, since that's exactly what Murder is. The intent to end a life. Which is different from doing something, and an outcome has the potential to be death.

And it can get more murderhobo than that. They could decide to space the slaves themselves to remove them as a bargaining chip entirely. The "Shoot the Hostage" trope if you will, but on the more lethal side of things, not just shooting them in the leg. And I've known players who would go that route. So yeah, they could totally make things worse than what they are choosing. And that difference should be measured.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

I dunno, what you described as your definition of collateral damage sounds exactly like what the players are doing. I mean, how often in movies do the heroes rush the badguy when an innocent is in danger? Not often? Why? Because deciding to attack, with little to no thought given to the side-effects of actions taken is how innocent hostages get killed. The trope, is for them to not attack, because, and this is important the risk of failure is too great, and the result is the death of an innocent, something they are sworn to protect.

Personally, I would totally give out conflict, if they completely disregarded the threat posed to the hostages, and decided to attack anyway. That's not the actions of a hero, that's the actions of a murder hobo, who only gets off on rolling dice and seeing a body count. A real hero would...oh I don't know, try and use social skills to talk down the slaver, perhaps convincing him to take one of them as a hostage instead, and letting the slaves go. Or perhaps using Force Influence to try and convince the slaver to not take this course of action. Or perhaps use Move to ****** the kill switch from his hands. Or, perhaps use slicing covertly to try and disable the method by which the slaves would be killed. Etc etc. I mean, this doesn't seem like a hard choice here.

While I do not subscribe to the villain logic of "You forced my hand, thus YOU killed the person I shot in the head" kind of guilt tripping you see in stories. In the end, the person who did the killing is at fault. But that doesn't exonerate the other party from involvement entirely. They knew what the possible ramification of their actions would be, and knew the course of action they were choosing was the most likely course to end with innocent deaths. And they took it anyway. To say they are 100% blameless is foolish, and they should know better. And if the players try and haggle with you about why it's not their fault, and they shouldn't get Conflict, smack them upside the head for being dooshnozzles.

As to how much Conflict to assign, I'd say at least a few points less than murder. If there is an entry on the chart for "taking reckless actions that cause someone injury/death" then give them at much, because that's basically exactly what they did.

A true Paragon, would extinguish their saber, drop it to the ground, and cease any actions that might risk innocent lives. This is Star Wars, the black and white's of actions for good/bad guys is pretty straightforward.

I'd say it's situational.

It could very well be that it's reasonable for the PCs to conclude that negotiating or being tricky or surrendering are not going to be as effective as "kill them before they kill the hostages." That's not disregard for the lives of the hostages. Yes, it's risky but the point is trying to save as many hostages as possible. Even if it's not the most tactically sound approach in a given situation it's still calculated (even if not the best option) at saving hostages. It's a risky situation that the PCs have been confronted with and any choice could result in the deaths of hostages. What if the slavers have a detonator in hand that will kill all the slaves if the PCs don't surrender immediately? Do they get Conflict if they don't surrender, because now even trying to talk to the slavers or be sneaky could lead to the deaths of slaves? If the PC escalate a situation into a violent one against foes that are not currently engaged in a heinous act and can be reasoned with or tricked etc, then I'd hand out some Conflict.

A key distinction for me when deciding if something is "collateral" damage is whether or not the collateral death and damage was incidental to the main action of the scene. Hostages are not incidental to the scene - they're the main source of contention in the scene because the scene is all about how to rescue them (or if to rescue them). If your actions to kill the slavers harms an innocent bystander or shop worker then I'd call that collateral damage/death. People not directly involved in the central conflict of the story and scene are getting caught up in the action.

What you both seem to be disregarding is that they already tried talking, they're not going straight to violence. The result of their talking was the slavers saying, "Give us all your stuff and trust us that we won't kill you".

Ok....

Heres where the Conflict comes in IMO.

What is the alternative to violence, other than "get nothing, give us everything"?

Just let them go? Regroup? Ok, the question then becomes; Does the group have any means to try saving them again? Can they track the ship, or do they know where it's going?

The OP isn't saying.

So; how much conflict does a Force User get for refusing to act, condemning all of them to a life of slavery? More or less than a slaver killing someone when they try to save them?

Doing nothing - watching the ship sail - is more directly giving into fear and the Darkside, than trying to save them and simply failing to prevent a life from being taken, IMO. Which if they're very experienced, they could likely pull off.

56 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

...they obviously went in with the intention to murder those slavers to enforce their beliefs over the beliefs of the slavers. A classical darkside action.

This is just rich. I lol'd. Ppl at work think I'm crazy.

So apparently the Jedi Council is a classic example of Darksiders, because the Jedi are massive interventionists, constantly going into situations to enforce their beliefs (which come from guidance by the Force) over others.

Sorry, guy, you couldn't be more wrong here.