There could be conflict once the players discover what they helped cause. I'd certainly elect to take some as a player.

22 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Fairly certain it was the old books, though I wouldn't be too surprised if he did it in the new books either; we probably won't ever know until the force awakens Trilogy has run it's course.

That being said, I may be wrong on that.

It's implied in the new canon. The Aftermath series that takes place I think entirely within a year of RotJ ending, and he's already out of contact presumably looking up Jedi stuff

3 hours ago, AdmiralLabeau said:

It's implied in the new canon. The Aftermath series that takes place I think entirely within a year of RotJ ending, and he's already out of contact presumably looking up Jedi stuff

Aye, not sure whether they just want an embargo on any information in the OT characters until the force unleashed, but I kinda remember hearing that now that I think about it; Luke basically disappeared and focused on his own agenda. Which is fine, I mean he couldn't fight a war and prepare to raise an order at he same time.

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 1:17 PM, HappyDaze said:

Killing bad guys is ok, even if the bad guys are under 18.

No. If the Characters knowingly put children at risk for anything other than a direct cause-and-effect instance for a greater good of greater concern (kill two kids to save 20) then they get a giant morality hit. If they did the kill two kids to save 20 it's still a hit, just not as bad as the other. Ignorance is no armor for the morality of the characters. Let's say it's the worse case scenario where they are all nearly adults who have volunteered for the Emperor's Junior Patrol, they have not yet entered service and could: change their minds, could awol, could pull a Finn, could become alliance agents. If you kill them in combat that's one thing, but a preemptive attack is clearly wrong. If the Jedi does not actively work to stop it they should take a good sized morality hit.

Was there really no other way for them to achieve what they want to achieve other than a sneak attack bombing on a structure in such a way that it assures the death of the sub-adults? I doubt it.

The SAGroup is a bunch or radicalized teenagers. You're not going to win them over. They wear Imperial uniforms, so if you can't stomach shooting teenagers, then shoot for the uniforms instead.

Radicalized is just a way to say "it's okay to shoot these victims of abuse and indoctrination".

16 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

The SAGroup is a bunch or radicalized teenagers. You're not going to win them over. They wear Imperial uniforms, so if you can't stomach shooting teenagers, then shoot for the uniforms instead.

Because there are no examples of radicalized members of horrible organizations that have realized what they are part of is horrible, and they want to leave? *cough* Mara Jade, *cough* FINN , *cough* Vader.

And those are just fictional examples. Real life has plenty of people who were raised in highly radical groups, who leave the group. Usually in their teens to early 20's in a lot of cases.

So yeah, there is precedent for thinking the SAGroup are victims that you should try and not casually murder, because they possibly don't know any better.

Given this particular example though; "they supplied chemicals that was used to bomb children" isn't entirely fair on the PC's to dock them with a lot of conflict; they had no idea what it would have been used for and thus weren't exactly compliant, they might have thought it was being supplied for a legitimate target. Thus I would probably only expect 1 or two to be handed out. If that

The real interesting crunch is what do the characters do afterward? Do they report to high command that this cell is conducting unsanctioned activities? Do the PC's get wind of some sort of ultimate scheme that would result in disastrous loss of life despite pushing the alliance agenda forward? Or are the party requested to provide another supply drop; despite their ambiguous target priority?

E.g. the morality system isn't meant to be a gotcha system but to tell the story. Some times there doesn't have to be a dramatic moral consequence; sometimes one set of events should set up another set of events that gives rise to the major decision. Do they do the right thing, or the easy thing and ignore it?

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Because there are no examples of radicalized members of horrible organizations that have realized what they are part of is horrible, and they want to leave? *cough* Mara Jade, *cough* FINN , *cough* Vader.

And those are just fictional examples. Real life has plenty of people who were raised in highly radical groups, who leave the group. Usually in their teens to early 20's in a lot of cases.

So yeah, there is precedent for thinking the SAGroup are victims that you should try and not casually murder, because they possibly don't know any better.

Sure, there are examples, but there are also plenty of examples of not-so-bad Imperials of other types that get caught in the crossfire. War produces casualties, and you don't get the luxury of trying to convert every bad guy. Luke killed many tens of thousands of Imperials on the Death Star, and I'm sure many of them were in the not-so-bad category, but they were still the enemy. Kill the enemy now and worry about it after the war ends, if you worry about it at all.

On the one hand - there's no indication that there were minors on the Death Star in the movies.

On the other - there is evidence that non-Empire prisoners were on board when Luke blew it up.

Sticky issue.

2 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

On the one hand - there's no indication that there were minors on the Death Star in the movies.

On the other - there is evidence that non-Empire prisoners were on board when Luke blew it up.

Sticky issue.

Even the Imperial were not all evil. Consider the cooks, janitors, laundry room workers, etc. These poor schlubs were just trying to get a paycheck to support their families.

7 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Even the Imperial were not all evil. Consider the cooks, janitors, laundry room workers, etc. These poor schlubs were just trying to get a paycheck to support their families.

Obligatory Clerks link :

I don't think you get into a hyper-security outfit like the Death Star without passing a ton of security and political alignment tests.

4 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Sure, there are examples, but there are also plenty of examples of not-so-bad Imperials of other types that get caught in the crossfire. War produces casualties, and you don't get the luxury of trying to convert every bad guy. Luke killed many tens of thousands of Imperials on the Death Star, and I'm sure many of them were in the not-so-bad category, but they were still the enemy. Kill the enemy now and worry about it after the war ends, if you worry about it at all.

The difference here is that one is a politicql group , the other a piece of military hardware that happens to be manned by thousands of people. Blowing up a group of 10 people , or blowing up a tank crewed by 10 people are two different things, so that comparison is moot. Yes Luke probably killed a mass of people during that, but its like comparing taking out a complete armada of military ships , and dropping a kiloton bomb on a political target in a city. The former will kill more, the latter will likely have alot of collateral damage. This is the empire's tactics at play in Jedha, and also Batonn, civilian casualties should matter and especially to someone force sensitive.

9 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Even the Imperial were not all evil. Consider the cooks, janitors, laundry room workers, etc. These poor schlubs were just trying to get a paycheck to support their families.

Yeah but just shoot for the uniforms lol.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but just shoot for the uniforms lol.

Exactly.

Interesting and frankly a bit unsettling to know there are people in this thread who are totally on board with the hypothetical murder of unarmed children, simply for what sort of outfit they are wearing, and don't bat an eye simply because "it's all pretend" and there's no actual consequences to said action beyond "well, my character maybe, just might feel a little bit bad if they learn about it."

It may well be my own perceptions, but this rings quite strongly of the closing argument from the movie "A Time To Kill," where in the defense attorney's closing statement paints a very disturbing picture of a heinous crime committed upon an innocent young girl, and then ends with a whammy of a sentence.

The Defense's Closing Argument from A Time To Kill

Then again, I don't get much enjoyment out of playing 90's-esque wandering murder-hobos that kill and maim with nary a second thought, simply because the opposition is make believe. Then again, I've always preferred heroes such as Superman (non-Snyder version), Spider-Man, and Captain America to so-called 'heroes' such as the Punisher, Batman, or Spawn, so it may simply boil down to a matter of perspective.

16 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but just shoot for the uniforms lol.

"And in the news today...we regret to inform you that 400 uniforms were ruined by the large amount of blood that leaked onto them."

There's a difference between targeting a fixed legitimate target that civilians are visiting and targeting civilians. Unless it's secret base with a cover/front function, the civilians know they are visiting a legitimate military target... it's the same idea as the social contract involved with rolling a dice pool with challenge dice in it... you've accepted the risk of despair before you rolled.

Every morning Monday through Friday I drive onot a military base to my job at a national lab. I know it's a target and that I become part of the target when I go to work. When I go home in the evening I expect to not be part of a legitimate military target. If the base got bombed I'd be a casualty of war, if I got bombed at the mall, grocery store, or church I'd be the victim of a terror attack. Those have very different moral implications.

The scenario at hand was that "Hitler youth" teenagers were visiting a munitions/weapons factory... they knew they were visiting a munitions factory, a.k.a. a legitimate military target, when they went there. I've personally got no problems (apart from any loss of life is a tragedy) with civilians visiting a weapons factory being collateral damage. The alternative is to invite/encourage the enemy to use hostages as human shields. There's no reason to use a human shield if they won't provide any protection.

If a hostage dies in a bank robbery or terrorist attack, their blood is on the hands of the bank robbers/terrorist, not the swat team that failed to save them.

Is it absolutely certain that the SAGroup is unarmed? If they wear uniforms, they may have sidearms as part of those uniforms, much as the youthful collaborators on V were armed.

I see a big difference between a civil contractor who works for the military in a fixed contract and a visitor who gets shown something.

The contractor knows what he is doing, took a choice and may be as responsible for military actions as “real soldier“ but is propably because of some bureaucracy not a “real soldier“.

The visitor kid may be there because his parents told him too, or his schoolteacher.

But besides this, in the game and the sw-universe: when a jedi doesnt give a crap when kidz are get blown to peaces, who then? He does not need to become depressive, or change his whole life or something, but he should think about it at least a moment, and this is what conflict represents.

And even if the players didnt ask abput the bomb and its target, maybe after they see in the holovid how a 16 year old crawls away without legs and crys for his mother, maybe they should ask next time.

If the kid is a a legitimate military target because his parents told him too, they accepted the risks on his behalf... and if they didn't consider the risk, well not everyone has good parents and they've got some of their child's blood on their hands.

The people who carried out the attack aren't innocent but their culpability is about the same as if storm troopers were the ones that got blown up. From an operational perspective, delaying the destruction of a munitions factory also costs lives... the people who the manufactured/shipped weapons get used on, so delaying even a day could cost thousands to tens of thousands rebel soldiers their lives, to save the lives of O (10-20) indoctrinated teenagers (who are highly likely to enlist in the imperial military and be shooting at other rebels in a few years anyway).

Yes the math of war sucks, war sucks as a whole, but if you're at war, meaning you've accepted the premise that this war is necessary, you heed the math or suffer the consequences. The rebellion is out manned and out gunned. Their only advantage is that they are highly mobile/have very few fixed targets that they need to protect while the empire has to protect all of their infrastructure/the imperial war machine. I.e. the rebels can employ guerrilla tactics, going out of their way to avoid civilian casualties when atracking legitimate military targets is infeasible from a practical/mathematical stand points. As long as they don't deliberately target civilians (i.e. they only attack legitimate military targets) then they have met the requirements of a "moral war" (yeah I know it's an oxymoron, I honestly don't think a moral war has been even theoretically possible since the invention of firearms).

Personally I have nothing to do with war in my job (other than working to prevent it) I'm a computational scientist who puts error bars on the numbers coming out os simulations relating to using satellites to detect things that go boom for the purpose of nuclear test ban treaty monitoring, so not all civilian contractors on a military vase have as much to do with war as a "real soldier." But I accept the risk of becoming a legitimate military target when I go to work at a national laboratory that happens to be located on a military base. Granted I live in the continental united states so the risk is very small (for now). Once a year there is bring your daughters and sons to work day and once every 5 years is family day, my son is 2 days shy of 2 months old so it hasn't come up, but I know the risk of letting my son/wife see where I work. And I know it's impossible to avoid all risk, you live in California you accept the risk of earthquakes, if you live on the Gulf Coast or east coast you accept the risk of hurricanes...

Without telling how it should be done, I'll tell how I'd handle conflict in this kind of situation.

My general guidelines:

• When PC escalates the conflict to violence and kills opponent, that is conflict worthy, regardless who the opponent is.
• When NPC escalates the conflict to violence and PC kills him, it may be conflict worth, but not much (unless PC is especially cruel). Though often it isn't worth conflict.
• When PC indirectly causes someone to die, it is conflict worthy (this is always situational). Not much, but some (I'd consult with PC about the amount), depending on situation. (rationale: for me, conflict also represents the conflict character experiences. If I'd accidentally caused a death, it would cause huge pain for me.)

In this situation, as PCs missed the bombing before hand, but probably guess the bombers, I might give PCs few conflict if they don't try to bring bombers to justice. (Personally I love those situations when PCs have conflicting interests, and they have to choose which bad option they take. I have seen some best roleplaying rising from those situations.)

Conflict is not automatically bad thing for PCs, so I try not to hold back when giving it. This is partially affected by our unique situation, as we play online, and have short sessions (usually 1-2 hours).

As a very very rough guide, it isn't whether the action was right or wrong based on the options you could think of at the time, it is whether it might cause a moral person to have difficulty sleeping.

The Jedi did many terrible things during the clone wars, that were certainly justifiable, probably saved lives overall, but some of them fell to the dark side as a result, and some believed they turned from the light.

@darzil: right. Thats my point. You can justify a lot of things, the use of chemical weapons, to nuke a city, dronestrikes. But in a system that is about moral conflict it should lead to exacly that.

@EliasWindrider i see ur point. But i dont think it should be as easy as u say. Not in this system. And some of the examples u brought r making justification to easy and sound more like an excuse, for example the destruction of a ammo facility would not save thousands of live, the empire has enough ammo. They are not in a war where they throw everything they have vs their enemy. Maybe some moff somewhere says “what ? the bombs come a week later, well then we do our raid one week later and do more starship controls until then.“

As i said i get ur point, but if morality is an important game mechanic in this game, it shoudnt be done with easy “oh well for the greater good“ otherwise the whole drama and gamemechanic is obsolete