1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

But...

You can't let someone change your mind on the internet!

Take 10 Conflict!

Dammit!!

Yes. Just yes. How heavy handed you want to be with conflict is a judgement call. Of course, if you wanted to really make a point you could just impose a morality penalty with a regnant waive of your "what is wrong with you?" hand. Morality is for force using heroes . The force has a light and a dark side and there is right and wrong. You are going forward or you are going backward. If you want a game that doesn't have that in it, use obligation or duty instead.

On 9/25/2017 at 0:40 PM, Desslok said:

So to sum up - we have no consensus on what levels of morality to hand out, if any. Thanks guys - all been a big help.

Upon reflection, I do kind of wish the players had been a bit more nosey (or I had tantalized them with a bigger carrot), I would have like to see how this would have played out. Ah well - the idea goes into the recycle bin for future use at some point down the road.

On 9/25/2017 at 2:10 PM, Archlyte said:

The way you described this as being classified by actions instead of a description of the person really made me think so I appreciate your thoughts on this. I would say that it is not immoral to kill them in the sense of the greater war, but it is tragic. It's important to be able to actually separate morality from sentimentality. It could be said that some of them are young and are very likely to at least modify their thinking, but in the heat of the moment and if you cannot really avoid killing them (because of time, risk, etc.) then I would say it's c'est la guerre.

You swayed me on this one, I was wrong about my initial post in this thread in response to you.

Deslok, I believe that this means that the consensus for your particular scenario even had they known is zero, but had they done it themselves it would have been the same as if they blew up stormtroopers (which would not have been zero in my game, but others might have a different number in mind)