2 hours ago, emsquared said:

Great, we're on the same page there.

Now there is also this thing called the canon media.

Genuine question cuz I haven't seen much of Clone Wars and none of Rebels: how often do we see Jedi smashing people into walls or crushing them with large objects, or throwing them off cliffs with the Force?

Off cliffs, never that I can recall, but using as an offensive weapon, sure. Prime example is RotS, where Anakin and Obi-Wan use force push on each other simultaneously during their duel. I'm trying to remember if Luke used it in RotJ during the skiff fight. Certainly that air-kick could count, right? ;-p

Yoda uses Force Push to attack Sidious.

Kanaan and Ezra use Force push to topple a AT-ST into Darth Vader. I think maybe Kanaan uses push offensively a few other times. Ezra does, but before his training starts.

It's been too long for me on Clone Wars, and that's mostly Jedi fighting droids, so not sure. Maybe fights involving Ventress?

Check out the Force Assault talent in the Niman Disciple tree. The Niman fighting style emphasizes integrating Force power attacks with the lightsaber attack, according to Wookieepedia (non-canon of course).

Don't forget that this game is meant to be fun. I had a GM that gave me conflict every time I activated my saber, or just for being in proximity to darksiders (this was per round mind you). It wasn't fun and I'm glad that game imploded. Also you're supposed to inform the player that "if you do this you're getting conflict". That way it's a choice to RP and not "well you wanted to play a jedi sucks to be you." It's not fun getting conflict for just showing up.

The force is a tool, it doesn't choose sides. Like anything you're actions determine who you are. Did you use the force to defend yourself and others? Lightside. Did you use the force to break every bone in the prisoner's hand till he gave up the rebel base? Darkside. Intent matters more than outcome.

Also if you want to punish players for having "scary" abilities you need to balance that out and make NPC's roll fear checks whenever the player uses these "terrifying" supernatural powers. Otherwise you're just punishing the player for their character choices.

3 hours ago, emsquared said:

Great, we're on the same page there.

Now there is also this thing called the canon media.

Genuine question cuz I haven't seen much of Clone Wars and none of Rebels: how often do we see Jedi smashing people into walls or crushing them with large objects, or throwing them off cliffs with the Force?

The only time I can think of a "Jedi" telekinetically throwing people off a cliff is when Kanaan does it in season 1 of Rebels to a couple stormtroopers. He had to do it to avoid them raising the alarm, since Ezra disobeyed orders and charged in when he wasn't supposed to, making a big racket and drawing the attention of the troopers. So it wasn't in Kanaan's original plan, but he did what he had to do.

Anakin slammed a dark Jedi (I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it) into a wall to end their duel in the final episode of Clone Wars season 5.

I think Obi-Wan slams an assassin into a wall during one of the Mandalore episodes of Clone Wars.

1 hour ago, Volt80 said:

Off cliffs, never that I can recall, but using as an offensive weapon, sure. Prime example is RotS, where Anakin and Obi-Wan use force push on each other simultaneously during their duel. I'm trying to remember if Luke used it in RotJ during the skiff fight. Certainly that air-kick could count, right? ;-p

Yoda uses Force Push to attack Sidious.

Kanaan and Ezra use Force push to topple a AT-ST into Darth Vader. I think maybe Kanaan uses push offensively a few other times. Ezra does, but before his training starts.

It's been too long for me on Clone Wars, and that's mostly Jedi fighting droids, so not sure. Maybe fights involving Ventress?

Check out the Force Assault talent in the Niman Disciple tree. The Niman fighting style emphasizes integrating Force power attacks with the lightsaber attack, according to Wookieepedia (non-canon of course).

First I want to clarify that simply trying to Move someone with Move is not what I'd consider an attack - or using it as a weapon. That's a tactical choice or even defense. Mechanically I'd draw the distinction at "inflict damage w/".

But in general your account of actual attacks sounds fairly similar to what I'd say I've seen from Legends media (which is what I'm most familiar with).

You see Jedi maybe throw someone into a wall on occaision, maybe knocking them over with a table or chair, never a toss off a cliff, and I can't think of any Jedi crushing people with a giant mass, but I can easily think of Sith.

I would extend this to say tho that the situations tend to be 1. They Jedi are otherwise unarmed or cuffed or something, 2. They are greatly outnumbered, or 3. They're fighting a dire enemy.

Which is all to say that using Move as a direct attack is not a common weapon - certainly more common than something like Choke, Harm or Unleash (looking at Luke here) - but it's not their go-to weapon, except maybe in stacked or dire circumstances.

Ultimately, I still think it is reasonable if not imperative for the GM to assign Conflict for Move attacks (and I'll soften my stance here) commencerate to how they use it. Which is maybe redundant with how the Conflict/Morality mechanic is meant to be used in the first place.

But having played and seen that PC who is just chucking ppl down turbolift shafts, off walkways and cliffs, and crushing people under landslides every battle where it could be done, I think it's a mistake to just say "Move can't cause Conflict".

So do you assign conflict when someone shoves a person off a cliff. hacks off limbs, shoots them, sets them on fire, blows up an entire Death Star with a Photon torpedo?

I mean Luke Skywalker should be a full on Sith Lord with all the people he murdered when he blew up the Death Star and used the force to do it with your logic....

Bottom line nothing causes conflict if its self defense or in the defense of others.

Well except Harm and Unleash which are darkside abilities that generate conflict by using them.

11 hours ago, emsquared said:

Great, we're on the same page there.

Now there is also this thing called the canon media.

Genuine question cuz I haven't seen much of Clone Wars and none of Rebels: how often do we see Jedi smashing people into walls or crushing them with large objects, or throwing them off cliffs with the Force?

Watch Yoda do all kinds of nasty uses of move on droids.

He pulls them he slams them and he even throws one into the air really high up.

1 hour ago, Decorus said:

So do you assign conflict when someone shoves a person off a cliff. hacks off limbs, shoots them, sets them on fire, blows up an entire Death Star with a Photon torpedo?

Do you assign Conflict when your Jedi makes someone angry, or jealous, or fearful? No. But if you use the Force to do it, you do.

There is a difference between pissing someone off and ****** the mind with the force to make them feel, think or act against the actions they would normally take.

If you can't tell the difference then you should be playing something else.

See using the force does not cause conflict your intentions when you use the force do.

Just like your intentions when you blow up the death star, shoot a storm trooper or hack the legs off a Sith matter.

Just like throwing a dude shooting at you with a blaster rifle off a cliff generates zero conflict.

If he didn't want to go splat maybe he should have given up before trying to kill you.

Can I say disarm him with the force yes. am I required to by the jedi code no.

The only thing that matters is was the intent behind my use of the force.

Its simple was I killing for the sake of killing or was I defending myself and my companions.

On 4/25/2017 at 3:59 PM, Ocule said:

IMO harm is more force choke/crush

All one has to do is read the full power descriptions to see that this is far from the design intent.

Harm "drains the very life from a target with a touch." Bind allows a character to "seize," "grip," and "crush" an enemy. Both powers inflict wounds, but Bind is quite plainly built to be the "Force grip" power.

Narration can do wonders for either application, of course but if you buy into Harm thinking you'll be able to use it to do a Darth Vader- or Count Dooku-style mind-grab, I think you'll be disappointed.

11 hours ago, Decorus said:

There is a difference between pissing someone off and ****** the mind with the force to make them feel, think or act against the actions they would normally take.

If you can't tell the difference then you should be playing something else.

See using the force does not cause conflict your intentions when you use the force do.

Just like your intentions when you blow up the death star, shoot a storm trooper or hack the legs off a Sith matter.

Just like throwing a dude shooting at you with a blaster rifle off a cliff generates zero conflict.

If he didn't want to go splat maybe he should have given up before trying to kill you.

Can I say disarm him with the force yes. am I required to by the jedi code no.

The only thing that matters is was the intent behind my use of the force.

Its simple was I killing for the sake of killing or was I defending myself and my companions.

Great, you've just illustrated with finality that there is a difference between the "mundane" action - simple skill checks can puss people off and mess with their minds - and accomplishing the same goal with the Force. Why is there a difference? Why is the Darkside the Darkside. I think the lore would reflect that the difference and the Darkside is because using the Force in that way is the easy path and maybe "cruel" or unfair. As you've stated it's not an absolute judgment.

I'll take your suggestion to not play this game under serious consideration. You're so wise and rational. Good talk, bro.

The mechanic tells us it's not as simple as you're trying to paint it either RE: self-defense = no Conflict.

You don't get Conflict for killing in self defense, but if you're killing in self-defense because of a fight you started without trying non-violent options first you do get Conflict. If you're killing in self-defense, but you outclass your foe by so much that you can and do inflict unnecessary pain and humiliation, you get a lot of Conflict.

There are extenuating circumstances to circumstances.

It's a very easy path and cruel and maybe a bit unfair to simply toss someone off a cliff or smash them with a landspeeder. Hmmm, easy path, cruel, unfair, sounds familiar.

So again, commensurate to its use, so; if you're throwing people off cliffs, or smashing them with objects eight times their size, I think it's completely reasonable if not imperative - and I'll clarify this point even though I am clearly not talking about RAW [edit: at least no more so than the GM is instructed to award Conflict based on their judgement] - that IF a GM finds the existing Morality guidance to be too permissive, to handout Conflict for these actions.

And I see you learned absolutely nothing.

1. You can't start a fight and call it self defense. I know people honestly believe the opposite to be true, but its not.

2. When you shoot, stab, blow up, throw off a cliff use the force on people its all the same thing as long as its self defense it does not cause conflict.

Some Jedi even firmly believe in not letting the opponent survive to prevent future conflicts or problems. See not killing a guy can lead to him showing up and murdering a whole bunch of people that could have been prevented by you instead of disarming him and walking away just outright killing him to start with. I mean honestly what kind of idiot lets HK-47 walk away intact after it tried to murder you, because you were able to easily disarm it. How much grief would Yoda have stopped if he took out Ventress rather then letting her run away?

Any attack is completely unnecessary pain and humiliation so I guess you hand all players tons of conflict every single time they fight back right?

DEAD IS DEAD every single way in which a person ends up dead in combat is horrifically bad humiliating and painful. Wood Chipper or blaster bolt thats not going to be pleasant for the person.

The method really does not matter if I throw a small moon at a dude he's just as dead and his last seconds were just as bad as if I shot him with a blaster. Actually the small moon might even be quicker and cleaner.

If you think having limbs lopped off is any less over kill then throwing someone into the air and having them become street pizza there is something wrong with you.

"Street pizza" - that's a new one to me, LOL!

Mace Windu had made the decision to end Sidious, but he seemed pretty conflicted about it. From Wookieepedia Legends, Windu was not perfectly light side. He actually mastered Form VII lightsaber combat, which required the user to dance on the edge of the dark side, coming as close as possible without going across the line.

It stops being self defense once you have your opponent at your mercy. I'm not saying a light sider shouldn't perform the execution to save future deaths, but I think it would still warrant conflict. Fortunately, the FFG mechanics allow for you to get conflict and still maybe not go down in morality, and even if you do go down in morality, it doesn't mean much long term for your character's alignment. However, make a habit of it, and you're at best a gray Jedi.

1 hour ago, Decorus said:

And I see you learned absolutely nothing.

1. You can't start a fight and call it self defense. I know people honestly believe the opposite to be true, but its not.

2. When you shoot, stab, blow up, throw off a cliff use the force on people its all the same thing as long as its self defense it does not cause conflict.

Some Jedi even firmly believe in not letting the opponent survive to prevent future conflicts or problems. See not killing a guy can lead to him showing up and murdering a whole bunch of people that could have been prevented by you instead of disarming him and walking away just outright killing him to start with. I mean honestly what kind of idiot lets HK-47 walk away intact after it tried to murder you, because you were able to easily disarm it. How much grief would Yoda have stopped if he took out Ventress rather then letting her run away?

Any attack is completely unnecessary pain and humiliation so I guess you hand all players tons of conflict every single time they fight back right?

DEAD IS DEAD every single way in which a person ends up dead in combat is horrifically bad humiliating and painful. Wood Chipper or blaster bolt thats not going to be pleasant for the person.

The method really does not matter if I throw a small moon at a dude he's just as dead and his last seconds were just as bad as if I shot him with a blaster. Actually the small moon might even be quicker and cleaner.

If you think having limbs lopped off is any less over kill then throwing someone into the air and having them become street pizza there is something wrong with you.

First, even if someone starts something - say with non-lethal means, and you kill with something like a gun, that killing is not self-defense - or not always. That's often manslaughter, which is in the middle between your non-existent black and white worlds.

Next, your FUs walk into a facility without even contemplating a non-violent option - there's a timeline and since they didn't try a non-violent option first, you award murder Conflict for each kill cuz that fight wouldn't have occurred if they had tried to sneak in so they can't claim self-defense. They started any subsequent fight by not trying to sneak in, so they're murders in every case.

Or, even more ludicrously, you award no Conflict because they simply didn't fire the first shot, even though none of the fights and deaths would have occurred had they tried to sneak in.

I could go on in the same fashion with cruelty, but since I'm pretty sure you knew you were wrong before your last post, I'll save my thumbs.

So yea, no. There are many shades of gray.

Actually I usually walk right up to the door of the Imperial facility and politely ask them to surrender.

Then things become interesting.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

First, even if someone starts something - say with non-lethal means, and you kill with something like a gun, that killing is not self-defense - or not always. That's often manslaughter, which is in the middle between your non-existent black and white worlds.

Next, your FUs walk into a facility without even contemplating a non-violent option - there's a timeline and since they didn't try a non-violent option first, you award murder Conflict for each kill cuz that fight wouldn't have occurred if they had tried to sneak in so they can't claim self-defense. They started any subsequent fight by not trying to sneak in, so they're murders in every case.

Or, even more ludicrously, you award no Conflict because they simply didn't fire the first shot, even though none of the fights and deaths would have occurred had they tried to sneak in.

I could go on in the same fashion with cruelty, but since I'm pretty sure you knew you were wrong before your last post, I'll save my thumbs.

So yea, no. There are many shades of gray.

1. Tell that to a certain Black Teenager who got attacked by a guy threatening him then shot and killed because he was too good at defending himself.

2. No you don't award murder conflict and if you do once again you really should find another game.

3. I feel the Dumb side of the force is strong in you.

4. WTF does cruelty have to do with anything? If a player likes torturing and killing just because a. He probably won't be a player in a game I run b. He's going to gain conflict.

How ever I should point out once again that you can't arbitrarily decide that method A,B, or C of defeating an opponent is more cruel then any other means to kill someone since they are all going to lead to fear, pain and eventual death.

Smashing someone with a rock does not kill with any less pain and suffering then shooting them with a blaster. You do not award conflict, because they died by X or Y method.

You award conflict if they laughed maniacally while doing it for fun or if they went all HULK SMASH!!!.

If this were the case then Luke is a super Dark Sith Lord for killing the Rancour by crushing its throat and letting it slowly drown in its own blood.

Hell Darth Vader couldn't possibly be redeemed, because he tossed the Emperor into a Reactor core, man that was a bad way to go and obviously was worth 50 conflict on your scale right?

Lets not forget all the conflict Leia earned to be Darth Bikini when she took great pleasure in slowly strangling Jabba to death with her chain.

How about all that conflict They all earned for letting Bubba Fett get digested for 2000 years in the Sarlaac pit.

The entire Rebel Alliance have to all have fallen to the dark side, because the Ewoks ate the Imperials and they knowngly let them.. (We must not forget Ewoks are cannibals)

Star Wars Canon is full of really bad ways that people were killed by Heroes and not a single one fell to the darkside.

6 hours ago, Decorus said:

Star Wars Canon is full of really bad ways that people were killed by Heroes and not a single one fell to the darkside.

But how else am I gonna lord it over my players for not thinking like I do!

9 hours ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

Probably the smartest thing said on this entire page of this thread.

13 hours ago, Imperial Stormtrooper said:

Is it?

Or is it actually true that people are often here seeking help on ways to make Morality work for them? Which often involve ways to use it in more situations beyond the guidelines provided in the book.

I mean the bickering is pointless, but the parts tucked in there that involve actual relevant Mechanical discussion could help someone.

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 7:03 PM, emsquared said:

First, even if someone starts something - say with non-lethal means, and you kill with something like a gun, that killing is not self-defense - or not always. That's often manslaughter, which is in the middle between your non-existent black and white worlds.

This is how Zimmerman got away with killing Treyvon. This kind of thing happens all the time and there is an escalation of use of force chart which looks like a stair case. Generally speaking law enforcement is allowed to use one step higher than the thing being used against them (baton vs fists). Thankfully this goes out the window with non-military/non-law enforcement. The primary reason manslaughter gets used as a crime is not being able to prove intent once the corpse hits the ground. You would be hard pressed to find a jury that would convict most people (in the US outside of a handful of states) the killing of a person once fists start flying if lethal means are used in self defense.

Most of how this kind of thing plays out is how you define 'start the fight.' Martin had the chance to walk away, instead he turned around and started punching. While Zimmerman was in the wrong for harassment and possibly assault (in many states assault doesn't actually involve contact that's battery) once fists started flying it became self defense.

IIRC Dooku, Sidious, and Maul both used move/throw/push against living targets to slam them into walls or off cliffs.