What do other GMs do to tempt players into situations that might earn them conflict? My players have all shot up to Light Side Paragon status, and I think part of the issue is that I'm not representing the temptations of the dark side enough for them. One of the PCs is a true pacifist, but the others are actually fairly "gray" as far as their back stories go. They just always seem to take the "light side" route around problems, even going so far as to use stun weapons against most enemies. Any tips to better role-play the seduction of the dark side?

Look into the PCs back stories and see if they have any family. Then, have a big bad ugly come and take that family member. Possibly even kill that family member to drive the PC into a rage. Starting out you may need to give them some overtly evil choices like torture, murder or stealing to get them to take some conflict. Another option is to get them to roll those white dice more often. Every time a black pip comes up they could be tempted to use it and generate 1 conflict. The more dice they roll the more likely they'll be to take the easy route.

A base example would be: Your little sister was kidnapped by a mysterious figure. As you're investigating the scene where she was snatched, you see a street urchin hanging around. As you start to ask him questions he's unwilling to cooperate because he doesn't like authority figures. Bribes don't work and neither does sweet talking, so maybe you should rough him up a bit? Intimidation checks could certainly generate conflict.

Introduce enemies that they will learn to hate & present opportunities for them to take the "easier, quicker path" when dealing with said villains. Make adventures frustratingly tedious when dealing with some weasel of an NPC informant only for them to find out the informant is reporting on them to the Empire. Slowly gain their trust with an organization that helps them out as long as they work jobs for them and slowly introduce more and more sketchy missions they have to do. Only warn the players of the acquirement of Conflict in the moment just before they are going to take the action that will award Conflict. Do not inform the players of how much Conflict they will gain and keep track of it yourself during the session.

But to be completely open and frank about it, if the player wants their character to become a light side paragon, then that should be the story you help them tell. Just let them know that it wouldn't make for a great story without there to be temptation & obstacles and that they should consider not what they want for the character when making decisions but how the character would act. If the character never voluntarily does things that award conflict, hit them with fear checks, tests of their faith, throw in some moments where they have to choose between two bad decisions that will award Conflict either way (the "lesser of two evils" trope).

Use the optional rules for the character's Moral Strength/Weakness trigger and put things in their path that test those Moral high an low points.

Also, make use of the Conflict rules in that they are guidelines. You can expand upon them, which I have done in my games. Dealing Critical Injuries to opponents is worthy of Conflict. Selfish actions, even such as inflicting emotional abuse (making an NPC cry or feel a strong, negative emotion) is worthy of Conflict. You are within your rights to grant an additional 2-4 Conflict to particularly selfish actions.

Really though, it's up to the player to play their character as they have constructed them. If they never give in to their moral weakness or even never play to their moral strength, it might be time for you to remind them what those decisions they made actually mean for the game. It's there for them to tell a cool story of a force using character who has both good and bad points of their personality, like everyone in real life, and that they can and should be playing up both of those from time to time. Possibly even mention the idea of additional XP for playing to their Morality exceptionally well & they will probably be tempted to do such a thing.

Let the bad guys win using underhanded tactics so the players start to feel like they need to do the same to keep up. Or at least establish that the deck is stacked against the PCs.

For example, setup a mission to retrieve something, then let the bad guy taunt them that he's going to cheat in order to get it first, and then the players will have to decide if they want it bad enough, are they willing to do the same to get it. Maybe the consequence will be plans for a new Super-Weapon that will give the enemy an advantage in the war they're planning. But if the PCs get it first, then they can destroy the knowledge or whatever. Along the way, they find the middle party to be either too stupid, ignorant, defensive or unwilling to listen to reason and so they have to decide whether to get nasty or give the bad guy an advantage.

Or, create a situation where the party is ambushed and they threaten to kill one of the PCs, or take them away to be tortured until they submit to the bad guys will. That will generate some serious conflict. Either watch/hear your friend die, or retaliate.

Desperate players may do desperate things. But complacent players will just move on to the next quest. Your job is to at least tempt them with the first option.

25 minutes ago, P-Dub663 said:

Look into the PCs back stories and see if they have any family. Then, have a big bad ugly come and take that family member. Possibly even kill that family member to drive the PC into a rage.

No.

This is the sort of GM stunt that results in every PC thereafter being the "My family is all dead and I don't care about anyone." type.

8 hours ago, Garran said:

No.

This is the sort of GM stunt that results in every PC thereafter being the "My family is all dead and I don't care about anyone." type.

I second this motion. Going after still living family without warning (or even with warning, because no, your 'great amazing hints I dropped' weren't great. Players NEVER pick up on those, get used to it) is a perfect way to make sure your PCs will never have families again. Now if for some reason they hang out on the same planet as their family and some mobster is asking them for protection money - now THAT'S a good setup, because the easiest way to get rid of this risk is to just intimidate, kill and drive off the gangsters. Doing any of that without taking conflict will be difficult, but also feel rewarding if they pull it off.

Also, tempt your players to use force powers more. In the F&D I'm in I have FR2 and am CONSTANTLY using Bind (fighting Sith up close as someone with mediocore fighting ability? Fuuuuuck no), and when that mystical 4 black pip roll happens... Not only do I get to use my upgrades but ALSO deal free wounds, you say? That IS tempting to both player and character. ... In the situation in question I did use those black pips and force choked someone to death. Woops!

Geeze guys, it was just an off the cuff suggestion as an example.

4 hours ago, Silim said:

I second this motion. Going after still living family without warning (or even with warning, because no, your 'great amazing hints I dropped' weren't great. Players NEVER pick up on those, get used to it) is a perfect way to make sure your PCs will never have families again. Now if for some reason they hang out on the same planet as their family and some mobster is asking them for protection money - now THAT'S a good setup, because the easiest way to get rid of this risk is to just intimidate, kill and drive off the gangsters. Doing any of that without taking conflict will be difficult, but also feel rewarding if they pull it off.

Also, tempt your players to use force powers more. In the F&D I'm in I have FR2 and am CONSTANTLY using Bind (fighting Sith up close as someone with mediocore fighting ability? Fuuuuuck no), and when that mystical 4 black pip roll happens... Not only do I get to use my upgrades but ALSO deal free wounds, you say? That IS tempting to both player and character. ... In the situation in question I did use those black pips and force choked someone to death. Woops!

Thanks for all the ideas, folks! I still think a lot of the issue is with me as a GM, not giving them enough morally questionable choices (or not plotting out light side paths that are more trouble and take longer, versus faster, more convenient options that would make Palpatine chuckle to himself). Another issue is that they've been reluctant to use their Force powers, since they've been in highly populated areas and don't want to be identified as Force sensitive by the Empire. That's limited the number of rolls they've made where dark side use has been a possibility. They have shown the willingness to do so in emergency situations, though, so more of those may be needed.

As for the family thing, two of them actually have Obligations that tie to family (it's a hybrid EOTE/FAD game). In those cases, families are fair game, in my opinion, since the PCs picked them as their achilles heel. I wouldn't kill the family outright, but you better believe if their Obligation gets rolled, some family member is showing up having just sold the party out to the Empire or having joined COMPNOR or something.

19 minutes ago, P-Dub663 said:

Geeze guys, it was just an off the cuff suggestion as an example.

Actually using family members is a great plot device, for a lot of uses. That's why players have them. They're plot hooks. I mean really, how often have familial ties driven storylines, and significant character arcs in Star Wars? Luke/Leia/Vader. Ezra and his parents. Hera and her father (and the family heriloom), Anakin and Padme, etc etc. The list goes on and on. To say "no, never use their familiy" is just silly. You have to use them properly. To put a family member in peril, forcing the PC's to go to great lengths, and possibly cross moral lines they wouldn't have considered previously, is the heart of dramatic storytelling.

I mean, when I make a PC, and I give them a fleshed out family, I expect the GM to use them against me at some point. It doesn't mean skin them all alive, and hang their corpses from the ship's cargo hull right off the bat. But have one of them send the PC a message, a regular "hey bro/sis, how's life on the Rim?" kind of thing, but have it hint at something sinister. "There's been a lot of Imperial activity around town lately. They keep coming by the house to talk to mom and dad. I'm worried, mom is really nervous, and dad keeps talking about -taking a trip-, when he thinks I'm not listening. I don't know, but I think they plan on leaving town. I hope things blow over, but I don't know. Anyway, gotta go bro/sis, reply soon! Love you!" or something similar. And then, if the PC doesn't get the hint, have them be in some cantina somewhere, and see a bit of holo-vid news about how the Empire has recently uncovered a cell of the Rebellion on *insert planet where PC's family lives, including vid-shots of their neighborhood*, and have the announcer say reports indicate the prisoners will be sent to *insert Imperial plot device location of your choice* for interrogation. And hey look, you know have a PC with a personal, vested interest in heading to the next spot on your plot train.

This isn't even heavy handed stuff. I mean, this rough outline has been used at least 4+ times in Rebels alone. I've no idea how often it was used in Clone Wars, as I stopped watching it after about season 2. But I mean, this is standard stuff. It's not being a Jerk GM, or being mean to the player. If they didn't want you to do something involving their family, they would've started out with the "My PC is a lone loner, who is a lone wolf...of loneliness...did I mention he's alone? Yeah, no family ties." There are plenty of players who do that without any prompting.

Seriously, use the family, dramatic storytelling (not just Star Wars, but storytelling in general) has used this trope for character motivation for literally thousands of years of storytelling . Just use them properly, and I would be shocked if your players don't jump at the chance to engage in a more personal storyline. How much of that involves them crossing lines to save their family, will be up to how you structure things, and how willing they are to break those moral codes. But I promise you, making their family be on the line, is more likely to cause that choice, than Random NPC 27 would, for most players that is.

25 minutes ago, SavageBob said:

As for the family thing, two of them actually have Obligations that tie to family (it's a hybrid EOTE/FAD game). In those cases, families are fair game, in my opinion, since the PCs picked them as their achilles heel. I wouldn't kill the family outright, but you better believe if their Obligation gets rolled, some family member is showing up having just sold the party out to the Empire or having joined COMPNOR or something.

Obligation/Family is about the PC having an obligation TO their family, usually one of support. Having the family sell them out would effectively put an end to that obligation. (Presumably replacing it with Bounty or something equivalent.)

Now, if one of them has ended up in Imperial service (COMPNOR or otherwise) and is using that position to try to protect the PC while still doing their job, it creates various potential plot hooks that don't require the family member be in personal danger, and any danger that might come up is more to do with being discovered than with being strongarmed/taken hostage/killed/etc.

54 minutes ago, Garran said:

Obligation/Family is about the PC having an obligation TO their family, usually one of support. Having the family sell them out would effectively put an end to that obligation. (Presumably replacing it with Bounty or something equivalent.)

Now, if one of them has ended up in Imperial service (COMPNOR or otherwise) and is using that position to try to protect the PC while still doing their job, it creates various potential plot hooks that don't require the family member be in personal danger, and any danger that might come up is more to do with being discovered than with being strongarmed/taken hostage/killed/etc.

Well, to be fair, that particular Obligation is Betrayal by a family member. But I disagree with your opinions about involving family members in a game in general (I'm in general agreement with KungFuFerret), so we can agree to disagree on the matter.

Actually, even for the general Family Obligation, I think betrayal by a family member can be a powerful plot point that doesn't violate the spirit of the Obligation. My own player with the Family Obligation has adult children. If one of them were to betray her, she'd feel deeply hurt. But the way the player portrays her, she wouldn't seek revenge; instead, she'd probably work to try to save her baby from the terrible people he's fallen in with. Supporting your family doesn't mean they can't do bad things to you; it all depends on the way the player has written her back story.

Family members have lives too, and they don't always make the right choice.

Having a family member turn up unexpectedly can lead to some difficult moral dilemmas. Like having the party plan to take down a gang of smugglers only to realise that the leader of the gang is the younger sibling of one of the PCs.

Evil bad guys that don't fight back can tempt the PCs to the dark side. If the bad guy is unarmed and a species that is immune to force persuasion how will the light side PCs deal with him.

Pride is an excellent way of tempting a party with the DS, no one likes being made a fool of. Trick the party into being complicit in an evil deed and don't allow them a chance to correct it for a while. Leave the wound to fester and when they get a chance for revenge they may take it. Maybe sell them a sob story about a village that will be wiped out by an impending disaster (asteroid impact, volcano etc.) But the leader refuses to move his people. Maybe a wise Jedi can "persuade" them to board the transport to safety. Only when they later see one of villagers as a slave do they realise they've been tricked.

Go beyond the rules a little with the Force powers.

Tell them outright that those dark side pips will give them extra effects - power, knowledge, what have you - that aren't just constrained by what the power as written allows.

A truly devoted paragon of the light side is probably still going to avoid dark side pips like the plague, but they should always be aware that they're leaving power unlimited power on the table when they do. Nobody ever said being a paragon was the easy path, after all.

Ross over at Dice for Brains is great at this; whenever they have to choose between spending dark side pips or not he's always telling the players outright what tapping into the dark side will get them, and then lets them deal with the consequences whether that's dipping into the dark side or knowing that they could have accomplished something and didn't.

2 hours ago, Cannibal Halfling said:

Ross over at Dice for Brains is great at this; whenever they have to choose between spending dark side pips or not he's always telling the players outright what tapping into the dark side will get them, and then lets them deal with the consequences whether that's dipping into the dark side or knowing that they could have accomplished something and didn't.

Dice for Brains is one of the reasons I wonder what I'm doing wrong! In the first few seasons, the characters were always hovering around 30-50 morality at best... I'll pay more attention to how he coaxes them as I listen.

I also find it is pretty random and at low power levels easy to gain morality.

For example my character has only one force power, manipulate, and only FR1. In the last two sessions he has used black pips every time (as he has no idea of the dangers) but this turns out to have been once. He also rolled 10 on each conflict roll, a net gain of 19 morality.

i suspect with higher FR, more force powers and more average rolling falling to the dark side would be easier.

On 6/9/2017 at 9:33 AM, P-Dub663 said:

Geeze guys, it was just an off the cuff suggestion as an example.

It happens to be the one suggestion so far that results in nasty nasty player behavior thereafter, while still not triggering the right kind of frenzy.

One way I found that works REALLY well is to give extra XP for conflict accrued... until they cross over to the dark side. Once you're"converted" the Dark side no longer needs to tempt you.

On 2017-06-09 at 6:23 PM, Cannibal Halfling said:

Ross over at Dice for Brains is great at this; whenever they have to choose between spending dark side pips or not he's always telling the players outright what tapping into the dark side will get them, and then lets them deal with the consequences whether that's dipping into the dark side or knowing that they could have accomplished something and didn't.

The problem there is that the dark side isn't supposed to be more powerful, and granting extra benefits makes it objectively more powerful.

One idea I've been toying with is introducing random encounters (not "random combats" - actual encounters) to my game, precisely to do this. For example, let's say the PCs are in a hurry but they witness a speeder accident. Do they stop and help they injured passengers? If they do, they risk being late for saving the world, but if not, that seems like a point of conflict right there.

We had a great session on Saturday night were all of the Force users were given a significant amount of conflict. They're currently laying low on a primitive world and met some of the local inhabitants. As luck would have it, these natives have a pantheon of gods who range from blue to green in their skin colors. The two Chiss were mistaken for deities while the green Mirialan was seen as the evil trickster god. The dark force user immediately used this information to gather food, drink and women for himself and wasn't seen for a long time as he disappeared into the chief's hut, earning himself 8 conflict. Jazzi, the Jedi Consular used her position to gain access to other parts of the village. She flung her influence around to get what she wanted whenever things didn't go her way. This earned her 8 conflict as well. In the meantime the Jedi Guardian, Colton, stood by and sampled the local food and drink. For his inaction, he earned himself a lovely 6 conflict.

When the session was all said and done, Jazzi and Colton each lost 7 morality, while Mighail, the dark sider dropped from 55 to 40 morality!

Wait. Is Colton the player or the character? I have a dude name Colton playing a Guardian in my group as well.

And here I am struggling to get my players to not go dark side...

Focus less on "morality" as such - good v. bad, right v. wrong - and instead focus on themes of giving in to fear and strong emotions over logic. Those are the true/unassuming paths to the Darkside.

16 hours ago, The Grand Falloon said:

Wait. Is Colton the player or the character? I have a dude name Colton playing a Guardian in my group as well.

Colton is the character's name. He's a Jedi Guardian played by my buddy Roy.

On 2017-06-20 at 4:30 AM, edwardavern said:

One idea I've been toying with is introducing random encounters (not "random combats" - actual encounters) to my game, precisely to do this. For example, let's say the PCs are in a hurry but they witness a speeder accident. Do they stop and help they injured passengers? If they do, they risk being late for saving the world, but if not, that seems like a point of conflict right there.

Lend what aid you reasonably can in the circumstances. You can't save everyone from everything and priorities have to be set - and failing to save the world will render their speeder bike accident irrelevant anyway. Moreover, conflict is supposed to be generated by taking the easy or selfish path, not by taking the right path, or one right path among several options.

While the way that characters respond to something (and the reasoning behind it) can be telling - what is reasonable in that circumstance? - slapping the players with no-win situations re conflict is liable to put them off of the system and it stops working when that happens.

11 hours ago, Garran said:

Lend what aid you reasonably can in the circumstances. You can't save everyone from everything and priorities have to be set - and failing to save the world will render their speeder bike accident irrelevant anyway. Moreover, conflict is supposed to be generated by taking the easy or selfish path, not by taking the right path, or one right path among several options.

While the way that characters respond to something (and the reasoning behind it) can be telling - what is reasonable in that circumstance? - slapping the players with no-win situations re conflict is liable to put them off of the system and it stops working when that happens.

Hmm, I see what you're saying...I will think on this.