5 minutes ago, emsquared said:

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".

I'm not disregarding that, it's just not relevant IMO. Now, I'm assuming these players are actually trying to be good guy, heroes, and operating on that assumption. But if they are just doing the "grey hero" gritty thing, then sure, whatever. But, if they are trying to be virtuous, noble, etc, then choosing any action that knowingly puts the slaves in danger is generally considered a "bad call" in cinematic standards. If the villain is about to blow them up anyway, that's another story, at that point the death of the slaves is going to happen either way. At least if they act, then there is a chance of saving them. But if the slaves are not at threat by any other factor other than the players acting , then yeah, it's still on their head at this point.

7 minutes ago, emsquared said:

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

Then we can't discount either scenario if the OP isn't saying. But those are perfectly viable options. They could, oh I don't know, put a tracking device on their ship, and tail the slavers to their destination at a later date, and free the slaves. In fact that sounds like a way cooler situation to me personally.

And again, assuming we are dealing with heroic characters, then yes, the alternative to violence is to let them take the ship. Do you really think the better moral choice, is to risk the deaths of dozens of people, over what is effectively, a car in our world? Sorry but I don't see any situation where that slices out as the "good guy" option.

10 minutes ago, emsquared said:

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?

Compared to causing their deaths? Less, in fact it's on the freaking chart. And less than what a slaver would get for personally killing them.

11 minutes ago, emsquared said:

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.

.....you're kidding right? Choosing the option that guarantees the innocent lives are spared (for now), is the Darkside option in your rationale? I...I mean...wut?

Looking at Table 9-2 Common Conflict Point Penalties I don't see collateral harm to sentients listed. There's Unnecessary Destruction for 3-4 Conflict.

Unprovoked Violence or Assault is 4-5 Conflict. This is sorta in the ballpark of collateral harm to sentients.

The Bestowing Conflict section also says to take character intent into consideration - then goes on to say that if acts are selfish or evil more Conflict can be given using the base transgression as starting point, it doesn't say anything explicitly about reducing base transgression Conflict.

If you're going to hand out Conflict in this situation I'd make it about 4 or 5. That's not a huge deal but it's not nothing which seems about right if you think the situation warrants Conflict. They're not being selfish (at least the way it's been portrayed) and they are being threatened.

Quote

it's just not relevant IMO

Then your opinion doesn't include the rules and guidance we receive in the books for Morality. Which deprives it (your opinion) of a significant amount of value. IMO, of course.

13 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Then your opinion doesn't include the rules and guidance we receive in the books for Morality. Which deprives it (your opinion) of a significant amount of value. IMO, of course.

You can disagree all you want, but to say that it's ok for them to risk the lives of dozens of people, when they still have alternate options, and this is a "good" choice, well, if that's your idea of a moral choice, then your and my opinion probably shouldn't mix much.

I think wisely, the Conflict table and "gaining Conflict for immiral actions" rules stick to actions the characters take and not their inner experience of it.

Much of the dark side has to do with the inner experience of the PC though. Are they acting out of fear or anger? Well, that's a PC decision. But handing out Conflict is based on their actions because that's not ambiguous and doesn't involve the GM telling the player what their character is feeling.

I think PCs and GMs who embrace the Conflict system can have fun bringing the inner struggle in to play but that's largely up to the PC. It's easy for the PC to narrate gaining Conflict - whether through converting DS pips into Force Points or through character actions - as their character actually touching or using the dark side. While not RAW, there's also nothing wrong with a PC deciding that Conflict gains may represent more internal conflict and guilt and mental anguish or whatever than they do the dark side directly. But this is still up to the PC. The GMs tools are focused on the PC's actions.

I don't think responding violently to the demands of slavers warrants Conflict for several reasons. One is that the act is selfless. Another is that freeing slaves seems to inarguably be a good thing. Certainly it's reasonable to question whether the cost and risk is worth it as some/most/all slaves may die in the attempt. But that's a risk inherent to the situation and not one the PCs are bringing to it.

If I was a player in this scenario and the GM handed out 4-5 Conflict for risking the lives of slaves for intervening or less Conflict for doing nothing and letting the slavers go (assuming there was some chance of actually being able to successfully intervene) I wouldn't complain at all. If the GM handed out 10+ Conflict (or 4 Conflict for each slave killed in a tough situation) it would seem heavy handed to me and moving into "Paladin Screw-Job" territory. I don't think that's what the OP is trying to do so I'd recommend a low to medium amount of Conflict if any is going to be handed out.

Using the Conflict rules like that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Star Wars. Remember, the pinnacle of goodness in the movies is when your father murders a senior citizen in front of you. That's what redeems dad from moral Hitlerness into being a sparkly spirit of goodness. Giving people Conflict for taking out a bunch of slavers slash hostage takers is entirely missing the point.

7 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

You can disagree all you want, but to say that it's ok for them to risk the lives of dozens of people, when they still have alternate options, and this is a "good" choice, well, if that's your idea of a moral choice, then your and my opinion probably shouldn't mix much.

But do you think it's unreasonable to not want to disarm and put yourself at the mercy of slavers?

Depending on the skill set of the group, being taken hostage themselves then retaking their own ship may be a good options...but even this puts them right back in the same situation they are currently in but probably worse. The droids have orders to kill slaves at the first sign of resistance. So, if the players surrender they have to break out of their "cell", retake their weapons, and get to the slaves all without the droids noticing any of this. And if droids are actually in the same room with the slaves they've landed themselves back in the same situation: do we surrender again or risk the lives of the slaves by fighting the droids? Maybe the group is really good at stealth and skulduggery and maybe fewer droids will be on the ship watching the slaves or they can do something on the ship to tip things in the favor but that's a lot of "ifs". It's reasonable for a PC to think that the current moment is the one where they have the most power and ability to get the outcome they want - it's only going to get worse from there.

Or the PCs could just put themselves at the mercy of the slavers and not try to break out and save the slaves at all (because it's too risky to make it a morally good choice) but to just bide their time until the slaves have been offloaded and their ship has been moved to the chop shop. Of course this this requires the PCs trusting slavers to "follow the plan/agreement". Now, the GM seems like a good one, so the PCs can meta-game and trust the GM won't totally screw them and they're playing Star Wars where daring escapes are expected so being outright executed by the slavers is probably off of the table, but unless the PCs totally abandon any plan of rescuing the slaves they really haven't escaped the moral dilemma attached to the risk. Even if the PCs change the battlefield to their own ship (with themselves locked up and weaponless) the dilemma is still there.

22 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

You can disagree all you want, but to say that it's ok for them to risk the lives of dozens of people, when they still have alternate options, and this is a "good" choice, well, if that's your idea of a moral choice, then your and my opinion probably shouldn't mix much.

Good thing I didn't say those things.

Indeed I said they should take Conflict, if slaves die.

I said the amount they take should be dependent on the things I said (can they track, or have another shot at this?).

Risking ppls lives isn't a Darkside action. Heroes have to risk ppls lives, including their own, all the time to accomplish a greater good.

Killing the slaves yourself is Darkside.

Doing nothing, when you know this is your only chance to do something, is the Darkside.

Trying to prevent their deaths and failing to some degree is not the Darkside. It is Conflicting, but nowhere tantamount to murder.

Ultimately, on a meta level, without knowing the full story and range of options, this hints of, not bad but just, lazy GMing to me. Again, not knowing the things we've established we don't know.

And I'm not down with punishing players for lazy GMing.

OKay, back to the original question (and yeah, I skipped about 2/3rds of the posts).

My answer is "none."

Collateral damage is ancillary unwanted damage from a direct attack.

A couple of clarifying examples.

A group of Marines is taking RPG fire from a hospital wing. They only have small arms so they can't answer the attack from their position so they call in an air strike.

An F-16 shortly arrives and drops a 500 lbs bomb through the window killing all 16 jihadist savages. However the adjacent room was being used by a patient and the attending family and that family dies in the attack.

The killed family was collateral damage. Their death was unintended and unwanted, but is still directly associated with the 500 lbs bomb. The Islamofascists are NOT collateral damage because they need to die.

If the same Jihadi bastards accidentally misfire one of their RPG's into their stash of munitions and blow up the whole hospital killing everyone in the hospital (including themselves) then there is NO collateral damage from the F-16. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Nyet!

In your case, the threat of death and injury to the slaves is from the slavers droids. Not the PC's. So the PC's are in NO jeopardy from inflicting collateral damage (or conflict).

In fact, you've painted the slavers as such despicable unrepentant miscreants that your force user could cut a bloody swath through the slavers with absolute impunity.

No conflict for you!

After reading all of the posts listed, I have to agree with Mark Caliber here. No Conflict for taking on the slavers in this situation. First off, as others have mentioned, this is the same as a Police Negotiator dealing with a Hostage situation. He can't just drop his weapons and let himself be taken hostage as well. This leaves him with no bargaining room. Secondly, letting the Slavers take the slaves and ship under these circumstances falls under the "knowingly allowing Evil to be committed" on the Conflict chart. The characters in this situation are obligated stop the slavers in this situation.

I'm in agreement with what I think is the majority here: while Jedi (not that PCs are always trying to imitate them) preferred to find peaceful solutions, they had sabers for those times when using them was the least bad option, and this scenario is one of them. Absent some other method that has a reasonable chance of working without putting the slaves at even more risk, their best course of action here is to try to save as many as possible while they have the chance.

Hacking/jamming might be able to mess with the droids long enough to get the slaves out of there, and a really good bluff might also do the trick, but failing at either of those is liable to mean that the slaves start getting gunned down while the PCs are in less of a position to help them, so they're only reasonable courses if the PCs are skilled enough that the gambit is likely to work.