9 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Actually, no. I didn't. I realize that's critical for you to assert as truth for you to be able to maintain your carefully constructed world you live in, but it's a lie.

I said that some lies, supposedly carried out in the name of your noble cause, still merit conflict.

That's far from every lie.

Furthermore, it's a simple acknowledgement that when there are two (or more) possible paths, and you choose the one that happens to cause collateral damage just because it's the easy path, means you're not in fact doing it "for the cause" you're doing it cuz it's easy. Conflict.

No. Only lies which are specifically for selfish greed/personal gain warrant Conflict. If a lie is for a noble cause then it never warrants Conflict. If it is done for the sake of others then there is no Conflict. In your first post, you did mention that there might be a couple of exceptions, you explicitly said that even lies done for noble reasons we’re worthy of Conflict. This is never the case.

Oni Wan did not gain Conflict for lying to Luke about his father. Qui Gon did not get Conflict for “cheating” with Watto’s chance cube. Both were for noble causes and, as such, we’re not worth Conflict. Period.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Only lies which are specifically for selfish greed/personal gain warrant Conflict. If a lie is for a noble cause then it never warrants Conflict. If it is done for the sake of others then there is no Conflict.

Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding, but not surprising to anyone who has seen your posts before.

Here we are, full circle: taking the easy path, even in the name of the good cause, can be self-serving.

The good cause is not a carte blanche to do anything you desire.

Really, you are an exemplary... example! of what not to do with this Morality system, so thanks Tramp.

Do not engage the Morality system with intellectual dishonesty.

Engage it mindfully.

GM and Players.

24 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding, but not surprising to anyone who has seen your posts before.

Here we are, full circle: taking the easy path, even in the name of the good cause, can be self-serving.

The good cause is not a carte blanche to do anything you desire.

Really, you are an exemplary... example! of what not to do with this Morality system, so thanks Tramp.

Do not engage the Morality system with intellectual dishonesty.

Engage it mindfully.

GM and Players.

No, it isn’t. There are some actions which are never justified. However lying for the sake of a good cause, even one as simple as to avoid unnecessary fights, is always fully justified and never warrants Conflict. That is by RAW. Only lies explicitly for selfish reasons, for personal gain, for greed, to deliberately cause harm, is worthy Conflict. This is explicitly stated on page 324 of the F&D core rules.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

lying for the sake of a good cause, ... is always fully justified and never warrants Conflict. 

Nope. Those words are not RAW. Stop trying to pass off your interpretation as something that's written.

Indeed, that very section implies that table is for non-obviously evil or overly selfish acts, as obviously evil and overly selfish acts warrant 1 - 5 more Conflict on top of the table amount, according to RAW in that very section you cited. I'm starting to think you didn't even read it, it also speaks of gray areas of selfish but not truly evil warranting a minimum of +1 Conflict, and of course the GMs interpretation as being final. All of that, actual RAW for you.

Nice back-pedaling on the stealing tho. Where'd that go from your argument? Gone. Just like all of it now.

So yeah, you're really racking up the Conflict here.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

Nope. Those words are not RAW. Stop trying to pass off your interpretation as something that's written.

Indeed, that very section speaks of gray areas warranting 1 Conflict, and of course the GMs interpretation as being final. Actual RAW for you.

Nice back-pedaling on the stealing tho.

So yeah, you're really racking up the Conflict here.

Lying for a noble cause is not a gray area. The rules explicitly rule that lying for a noble cause doe not warrant Conflict.

To quote page 324:

Quote

Lying for Personal Gain: The PC tells a lie for selfish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting others.

The rules are clear. Lying for the sake of others does not gain Conflict. Lying for selfish reasons, and only for selfish reasons, gains Conflict. That is why the table says “Lying for Personal Gain” and not simply “Lying”. This is also why the old D20 Power of the Jedi Sourcebook specifically states that a Jedi is allowed to lie as long as it is for noble reasons. So as long as the lie is for the benefit of others, and thus for the greater good, there is no Conflict. Period. Only lying for selfish reasons, for personal gain grants Conflict.

The fact that Obi-Wan and Yoda keep lying to Luke for his own benefit doesn't change the amount of pain this causes Luke. The fact that they're trying to manipulate him into killing his own father is hardly a noble purpose either, not even if it's for the alleged "Greater Good". I would still slap them with conflict for it, they're lying because they don't want to explain their own failures to Luke, telling him just enough to string him along in their plans. They also keep his sister a secret from him so that he can't "taint" her viewpoints so that they can have a backup Skywalker in case the first one dies. The lies of Yoda and Obi-Wan are very much for their own selfish needs.

Qui-Gon similarly cheats for his own purposes and tries to outright steal a hyperdrive once he learns that his money is worthless out there. All of that is for his own personal greed again. He thinks Anakin is the chosen one, so he must get him with him, consequences be damned. Because his need is greater than the need of a young child who is wrenched from his mother. Qui-Gon takes no extra measures to make sure that Shmi wouldn't be abused by Watto as revenge for losing Anakin. Basically, once he's got what he wants he gets out of there without a care for what he leaves behind.

Much like coercion with the goal of making someone back down always leads to conflict, lying is similar. It is the easier path, the path of least resistance and manipulative. It should lead to conflict, even if you feel like you're doing it for a greater purpose. If your purpose is so great then you should be able to convince others that they should let you go or give you what you need/want.

18 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

1. Does the force care about intent or strategy? This covers things like the good of the many outweigh the good of the few (thanks Wrath of Khan). It also seems like the hardest part to adjudicate. Killing one person savagely might end a fight with a bunch of others, does that justify the action? Would you award conflict if a PC force-ripped the head off a stormtrooper in front of his companions just to stop further bloodshed?

2. Building off number 1, does the immediacy of the result matter? In other words, a PC might do bad things in the short-term that have a long-term positive effect. Sort of the antihero approach. Do you take this into account when awarding conflict or should things be taken at face value or at least with some constraint on the immediate situation?

3. Does the force care about the emotional state of the character? So, if someone kills a bad guy while enraged is that different than if they kill the bad guy while calm? If the force doesn’t care, then why does the Emperor tell Luke to give into his hate?

4. As a GM, have you faced specific challenges with awarding conflict? Feel free to cite examples where you’ve awarded (or not awarded) conflict in the past that may have been difficult.

1) Yes and no. The force doesn't care a great deal about life and death itself, but it cares immensely for suffering and magnitude and the situation it took place in. So the death star firing was an immensely evil act that likely would have corrupted anyone who thought I was a sound idea, yet destroying it, with the millions of lives aboard wasn't. Why? Because the force had an "intent" that it manifested in it's champion, Luke Skywalker. Being one with the force sometimes means committing actions most would consider crazy or super human. So I would say that while the force doesn't have a plan per say, or at least one understandable by the mortals on set, it does have a will. In the case of the death star, it's eradication was the only way available to Luke and he did it out of a great need to prevent more destruction and the victory of the dark side.

It's noted that causing terror and unnecessary harm using the force is something that will always gain conflict; in that case, I don't see any way that tearing the head off someone using the force as a weapon wouldn't grant a PC conflict. Likewise, killing people or using the force to intimidate them with a characters apparent "godhood" just because it's "the easiest way of keeping the secret" is equally conflict worthy. Killing is fine as long as it's for a noble cause that can't be accomplished any other way (Jabba's palace)

2) No. If a PC does something terrible, no matter how good the long term intention is, is still a terrible act in star wars. The key thing with anti-heroes is that they still are fundamentally heroes at their core, not villians. My character is an anti-hero who often does questionable things, such as manipulate people into action against one another. But does it from the perspective of a survivor complex who is trying to be a good guy, but has had a rough life up to this point where the only thing keeping him alive is the will to exploit other, often more powerful factions (which funnily enough isn't even his back story. The last 4 years of roleplaying has been a rollercoaster! XD).

3) Yes. Someone who has embraced negative emotions or is committing an act out of hate should always receive more conflict. Likewise, someone acting on a morality weakness may gain conflict for following their compulsions. There's a difference between killing an inquisitor out of self defence or compassion (which does happen, given how corruptive the dark side is of individuals) as apposed to losing one's temper over their relative being offered as a sacrifice and hitting him until he stops moving. Not to say a character should be hit with conflict every time they get angry (we see characters making emotional outbursts all the time) but acting on those outbursts in the most direct way? Yeah, would probably weigh into the final assessment.

4) I am not a GM.

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Lying for a noble cause is not a gray area. The rules explicitly rule that lying for a noble cause doe not warrant Conflict.

To quote page 324:

The rules are clear. Lying for the sake of others does not gain Conflict. Lying for selfish reasons, and only for selfish reasons, gains Conflict. That is why the table says “Lying for Personal Gain” and not simply “Lying”. This is also why the old D20 Power of the Jedi Sourcebook specifically states that a Jedi is allowed to lie as long as it is for noble reasons. So as long as the lie is for the benefit of others, and thus for the greater good, there is no Conflict. Period. Only lying for selfish reasons, for personal gain grants Conflict.

Your own citation again proves you wrong.

The fact that only some lies may be told to benefit others without Conflict, at the same time states that NOT ALL LIES may be told to benefit others without Conflict. Which is what I have said from the start.

Not all lies may be told in the name of the cause without warranting Conflict.

Been fun slapping ya down, Tramp. But I think you've had enough.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

The fact that Obi-Wan and Yoda keep lying to Luke for his own benefit doesn't change the amount of pain this causes Luke. The fact that they're trying to manipulate him into killing his own father is hardly a noble purpose either, not even if it's for the alleged "Greater Good". I would still slap them with conflict for it, they're lying because they don't want to explain their own failures to Luke, telling him just enough to string him along in their plans. They also keep his sister a secret from him so that he can't "taint" her viewpoints so that they can have a backup Skywalker in case the first one dies. The lies of Yoda and Obi-Wan are very much for their own selfish needs.

Qui-Gon similarly cheats for his own purposes and tries to outright steal a hyperdrive once he learns that his money is worthless out there. All of that is for his own personal greed again. He thinks Anakin is the chosen one, so he must get him with him, consequences be damned. Because his need is greater than the need of a young child who is wrenched from his mother. Qui-Gon takes no extra measures to make sure that Shmi wouldn't be abused by Watto as revenge for losing Anakin. Basically, once he's got what he wants he gets out of there without a care for what he leaves behind.

Much like coercion with the goal of making someone back down always leads to conflict, lying is similar. It is the easier path, the path of least resistance and manipulative. It should lead to conflict, even if you feel like you're doing it for a greater purpose. If your purpose is so great then you should be able to convince others that they should let you go or give you what you need/want.

Nope. This is actually covered in a book titled The Philosophy of Star Wars. In it, Ashanti Fader, Associate Editor of Parabola magazine, wrote in her chapter, “A Certain Point of View”: Lying Jedi, Honest Sith, and the Viewers who love them, discusses this subject in depth. Her conclusion is that telling the truth can often cause more harm than lying to someone, depending upon the motivations and situations. She stated that when Obi Wan lies to Luke about his father, it was in order to protect him from a truth that he was not emotionally ready to hear yet. By contrast, when Vader told Luke the truth, it was specifically done to cause the greatest pain and turmoil in Luke’s mind and heart. The same is true when Dooku tells Obi Wan the truth about Sidious in AotC. It was done to former distrust and suspicion. So lying can be done for the greater good, and telling the truth can cause greater harm.

A quote from Jedi Master Odan Urr, used in the D20 RCRB, on pages 177-178 says, “Many feel that the Jedi should be scrupulously honest, never taking advantage, and never withholding information. This is nonsense.” A couple of paragraphs down, book then goes on to read,

Quote

When a Jedi is serving the Force, he may employ deception, subterfuge, misdirection, even fraud, if he does so with a righteous aim. Although most sentients have a

distaste for such practices, the Force is without such emotions.

3 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Your own citation again proves you wrong.

The fact that only some lies may be told to benefit others without Conflict, at the same time states that NOT ALL LIES may be told to benefit others without Conflict. Which is what I have said from the start.

Not all lies may be told in the name of the cause without warranting Conflict.

Been fun slapping ya down, Tramp. But I think you've had enough.

Wrong. The quote makes it clear that only lies done for Personal Gain grant Conflict. Even the Jedi Code allows for deception, even outright fraud if don for a noble cause. Lying for a noble cause does not generate Conflict, only lying for selfish reasons does.

Just because Jedis do it, and the Code allows for it, doesn't mean it can't generate Conflict.

Again, your intellectual dishonesty shining theough tremendously bright.

Just like your earlier false assertion that "because we saw a Lightside Jedi do it in the movies means it doesn't cause Conflict".

So blatantly false and disingenuous.

Just makin' yourself look worse and worse here.

Also, pretty sure that grasping at straws in something not even classifiable as a Legends publication is a crystal clear sign you're so completely wrong - as if RAW wasn't enough for game purposes.

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. This is actually covered in a book titled The Philosophy of Star Wars. In it, Ashanti Fader, Associate Editor of Parabola magazine, wrote in her chapter, “A Certain Point of View”: Lying Jedi, Honest Sith, and the Viewers who love them, discusses this subject in depth. Her conclusion is that telling the truth can often cause more harm than lying to someone, depending upon the motivations and situations. She stated that when Obi Wan lies to Luke about his father, it was in order to protect him from a truth that he was not emotionally ready to hear yet. By contrast, when Vader told Luke the truth, it was specifically done to cause the greatest pain and turmoil in Luke’s mind and heart. The same is true when Dooku tells Obi Wan the truth about Sidious in AotC. It was done to former distrust and suspicion. So lying can be done for the greater good, and telling the truth can cause greater harm.

The truth hurts Luke because of the lies told by Obi-Wan and upheld by Yoda. He might not have been emotionally ready the first time he meets Obi-Wan, but he would have needed this information before he left Dagobah. Telling him the truth might even have convinced him to stay, rather than following the Jedi path of being obtuse with information and keeping the truth hidden. He wasn't really needed at Bespin since Leia and Chewbacca gets away without him, he doesn't stop Han from being taken away and the whole thing is pretty much just a failure.

Lying to him about his father caused greater harm, it's only the lie that made the truth into a weapon. As for your source, I can't find a book with said title or any information about the author. I'm sure both exist since you usually don't reference stuff that doesn't exist, but it must have been a rather minor thing which could be classed as glorified fanfiction (like many things old EU).

The truth only becomes a weapon if it's obfuscated, which is why the Sith love lying and telling the truth both. They make people question what is real and doubt everything they see and hear. Jedi prefer half-truths and building up a rumor of being invincible and all-knowing.

2 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Qui-Gon similarly cheats for his own purposes and tries to outright steal a hyperdrive once he learns that his money is worthless out there. All of that is for his own personal greed again.

Eh, I disagree that he's cheating for his own personal greed. He's stranded on a planet with zero currency, and they are needed elsewhere because of the political situation on Naboo with the Trade Federation. That entire act of the film hinges on the plot point of "Our ship is broken, we need a new part to get back to what we were actually trying to do...and we have no money." So it's not greed so much as desperation/duty that is driving him. That being said, I'd still give him conflict, for cheating, and I would give him conflict for bartering for slaves, and deciding to take one instead of the other. His motives are mostly good, though you could argue that his desire to take Anakin isn't 100% altruistic. He does see potential in the boy, based on the beliefs of his Order. But it's still being done to try and get the child out of a crappy situation. He's just willing to leave the mother in that same crappy situation to get him out.

So at my table, both of those actions would garner conflict, but not as much as it would if he were trying to get the child just to have a child slave for his own uses, and was willing to cheat to get him.

3 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

So at my table, both of those actions would garner conflict, but not as much as it would if he were trying to get the child just to have a child slave for his own uses, and was willing to cheat to get him.

I would agree with this. I just disagreed with the fact that he wouldn't have gained conflict from it because of a Greater Good. A conflict in the Republic is hardly something that should be of any greater interest of the Force, the Force doesn't seem likely to have any political preferences or being in favour of one hegemonic rule or another. Otherwise all Jedi probably get knowing inaction all the time for allowing Hutt space to keep going.

22 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

I would agree with this. I just disagreed with the fact that he wouldn't have gained conflict from it because of a Greater Good. A conflict in the Republic is hardly something that should be of any greater interest of the Force, the Force doesn't seem likely to have any political preferences or being in favour of one hegemonic rule or another. Otherwise all Jedi probably get knowing inaction all the time for allowing Hutt space to keep going.

Which is fine, just wanted to point out your wording of his actions being driven by "personal greed" weren't really accurate, based on his motivations in the film. They weren't absolutely pure, no, but not greed. He was more than happy to try and pay for the parts, but the person refused to take his money, which left him in a bind. And the idea of gambling was presented to him by Anakin's mother, as the idea of gambling for what he needed genuinely didn't occur to him until someone pointed it out as an option. And, he did TRY and get them both free, but again, the person refused to that price, so he had to make a choice. An unpleasant choice about human trafficking and slavery, but a choice. He could've refused, and tried some other option that might've freed both Anakin and his mother, but he chose to leave her behind. Which she was happy for, as it meant her son was free, but it's still not a "sunshine and rainbows" result, for her or Qui-Gon He clearly wasn't happy about what he had to do, and it bothered him. Thus, to me, that translates to "a little conflict" because "nobody who deals in human trafficking comes away totally clean." And sometimes, the GM presents players with no good options. It's a perfectly reasonable way to present an issue. If the player is clever enough to out-think the GM, and find a 3rd option, kudos to the player, and they should be rewarded. But it's a big, mean galaxy out there, and sometimes, you can't get out of a situation without getting a little dirty as a result.

Which isn't a punishment to the player or PC at my table, it just reflects they are Conflicted about what they had to do.

Here are two recent examples of situations that I had at my table. At the end, I was wondering if I got the conflict correct. Both of these were played as flashback scenes in our new F&D campaign. None of the PCs depicted in these events are "Jedi" (and no animals were harmed in the making of this game).

1) A Human Gunslinger/Executioner with the Motivation of Justice returns to a homestead of friends and finds it burned down and actively mined by the mining guild. Skipping ahead a bit he coerces the local sheriff and the local aristocrat from the mining guild to let the family out of jail and to give them some money (a petty amount). When he actually meets the family at the jail he's told the daughter was killed by the aristocrat to 'make an example'. The gunslinger kills the deputy, maims the sheriff, drives the mining vehicle (similar to the Ore Hauler used in Rebels Season 4) into the aristocrats house and kills his two thug guards. Then he uses stun grenades to knock out the aristocrat, walks him to the balcony, puts a noose around his neck and (when he wakes up) kicks him off the balcony.

I awarded 5 conflict for the hanging but that should probably have been 10 for murder. Otherwise I didn't really award any conflict for all that mayhem. He did all of that in the name of 'justice'. I guess I could have added conflict for the Coercion, killing the thugs and maiming the sheriff in a gunfight. He probably would have been a dark sider before the game even started:) Anyways, yes I was probably easy. But he is an executioner/gunslinger and he was doing what he believed was 'just'.

2) We have Wookie Colossus with a Motivation of Freedom. Shortly after order 66, he was imprisoned on Kashyyyk with his fellow Wookies. One day he's taken to a labor camp work site to cut down a stand of sacred trees. One of the fellow slaves, and elder Wookie, refuses to work and is subsequently beat down by the Imperial troops. The PC steps in with a Plasma Beam cutter (provided to him to cut down the trees) and attacks the Imperial troops. His fellow Wookies join in and the kill a half dozen armed troopers/prison gaurds, take two prisoners, and head into the woods.

I awarded no Conflict. He was standing up to his oppressors, saving the elder, and trying to escape. I suppose he could have tried a coercion check or maybe stunning the opponents rather than beam cutting them in half. Would you have awarded conflict?

10 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Here are two recent examples of situations that I had at my table. At the end, I was wondering if I got the conflict correct. Both of these were played as flashback scenes in our new F&D campaign. None of the PCs depicted in these events are "Jedi" (and no animals were harmed in the making of this game).

1) A Human Gunslinger/Executioner with the Morality of Justice returns to a homestead of friends and finds it burned down and actively mined by the mining guild. Skipping ahead a bit he coerces the local sheriff and the local aristocrat from the mining guild to let the family out of jail and to give them some money (a petty amount). When he actually meets the family at the jail he's told the daughter was killed by the aristocrat to 'make an example'. The gunslinger kills the deputy, maims the sheriff, drives the mining vehicle (similar to the Ore Hauler used in Rebels Season 4) into the aristocrats house and kills his two thug guards. Then he uses stun grenades to knock out the aristocrat, walks him to the balcony, puts a noose around his neck and (when he wakes up) kicks him off the balcony.

I awarded 5 conflict for the hanging but that should probably have been 10 for murder. Otherwise I didn't really award any conflict for all that mayhem. He did all of that in the name of 'justice'. I guess I could have added conflict for the Coercion, killing the thugs and maiming the sheriff in a gunfight. He probably would have been a dark sider before the game even started:) Anyways, yes I was probably easy. But he is an executioner/gunslinger and he was doing what he believed was 'just'.

2) We have Wookie Collusus morality Freedom. Shortly after order 66, he was imprisoned on Kashyyyk with his fellow Wookies. One day he's taken to a labor camp work site to cut down a stand of sacred trees. One of the fellow slaves, and elder Wookie, refuses to work and is subsequently beat down by the Imperial troops. The PC steps in with a Plasma Beam cutter (provided to him to cut down the trees) and attacks the Imperial troops. His fellow Wookies join in and the kill a half dozen armed troopers/prison gaurds, take two prisoners, and head into the woods.

I awarded no Conflict. He was standing up to his oppressors, saving the elder, and trying to escape. I suppose he could have tried a coercion check or maybe stunning the opponents rather than beam cutting them in half. Would you have awarded conflict?

In the first one I would have thrown in way more than 5 conflict. I would probably have gone for a full 20. It sounds like he threatened people to get his way, then initiated a fight anyway afterwards where he killed and maimed several people as well as destroyed a lot of equipment. Then to finish it all off he murders a helpless person in cold blood in a way designed to make said person feel more terror and dread before they die. Doesn't matter if it's justified, that is a big ole heap of conflict.

Second one I would give little to no conflict. They took prisoners rather than outright murdering them, there might have been some conflict if combat was initiated before a diplomatic attempt was made. But definitely a lot less than in the previous example.

23 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

In the first one I would have thrown in way more than 5 conflict. I would probably have gone for a full 20. It sounds like he threatened people to get his way, then initiated a fight anyway afterwards where he killed and maimed several people as well as destroyed a lot of equipment. Then to finish it all off he murders a helpless person in cold blood in a way designed to make said person feel more terror and dread before they die. Doesn't matter if it's justified, that is a big ole heap of conflict.

Second one I would give little to no conflict. They took prisoners rather than outright murdering them, there might have been some conflict if combat was initiated before a diplomatic attempt was made. But definitely a lot less than in the previous example.

Thanks for the feedback. I sort of knew I was too easy on the Executioner. I'll probably have a short conversation with him so that we manage our expectations going forward. Ultimately, his morality dropped by 7 points at the end of the session so it still had an impact.

I was more struggling with the Wookie. I guess the justified killing is where I struggle a bit. It didn't feel like he had many options in this scenario. Perhaps he could have tried a coercion check so maybe he should have earned one or two conflict for resorting to violence first. Plus, he's a Warrior and Knights of Fate suggest that you take it a little easier on Conflict with Warriors to allow them to be themselves a little more.

23 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Here are two recent examples of situations that I had at my table. At the end, I was wondering if I got the conflict correct. Both of these were played as flashback scenes in our new F&D campaign. None of the PCs depicted in these events are "Jedi" (and no animals were harmed in the making of this game).

1) A Human Gunslinger/Executioner with the Morality of Justice returns to a homestead of friends and finds it burned down and actively mined by the mining guild. Skipping ahead a bit he coerces the local sheriff and the local aristocrat from the mining guild to let the family out of jail and to give them some money (a petty amount). When he actually meets the family at the jail he's told the daughter was killed by the aristocrat to 'make an example'. The gunslinger kills the deputy, maims the sheriff, drives the mining vehicle (similar to the Ore Hauler used in Rebels Season 4) into the aristocrats house and kills his two thug guards. Then he uses stun grenades to knock out the aristocrat, walks him to the balcony, puts a noose around his neck and (when he wakes up) kicks him off the balcony.

I awarded 5 conflict for the hanging but that should probably have been 10 for murder. Otherwise I didn't really award any conflict for all that mayhem. He did all of that in the name of 'justice'. I guess I could have added conflict for the Coercion, killing the thugs and maiming the sheriff in a gunfight. He probably would have been a dark sider before the game even started:) Anyways, yes I was probably easy. But he is an executioner/gunslinger and he was doing what he believed was 'just'.

Bolded by me for emphasis. This, this right here, is one of the big reasons that Morality systems in gaming cause so many problems. "Well in my character's mind, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, murdering people and skinning them alive, so I don't see why I should be punished for it." Is such a common type of defensive statement that I've heard over the years, that I've lost count. The key thing in what you described, is when he changed his behavior. At first, he was willing to just "make a deal" with the aristocrat, to try and save the family. Which is fine in my book. He found a non-violent way to free the people he cared about, maybe 1-2 points of conflict depending on how he accomplished it. Holding the aristocrat at gunpoint and threatening his life is still shady behavior, but it's not as bad as....well....what he ended up doing after he heard about what happened to the daughter. THAT was pre-meditated. He went back, and went out of his way to not just kill them, but kill them in a brutal and public way. He took the law into his own hands, and didn't bother trying to bring in some other kind of authority, at least not based on what you typed. So yeah, that was, in my opinion based on the description, excessive force and violence, and should definitely warrant more Conflict. For multiple issues if nothing else, as you described a couple different shady things he did. Cumulatively, I would say he would hit 10 Conflict from that act, if not more, as I don't see any way someone doing something like that, and coming out without being a little messed up from it. He might say "Well my guy is an executioner, it's what he does" Sure, ok. And how many executioners are actually untroubled by what they do? Very few. Taking life mentally unsettles people. It's just a fact. People try and rationalize it all day, to make themselves ok with what they did. But the fact that they are doing that at all, indicates they are Conflicted about what they did.

34 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

2) We have Wookie Colossus with a morality Freedom. Shortly after order 66, he was imprisoned on Kashyyyk with his fellow Wookies. One day he's taken to a labor camp work site to cut down a stand of sacred trees. One of the fellow slaves, and elder Wookie, refuses to work and is subsequently beat down by the Imperial troops. The PC steps in with a Plasma Beam cutter (provided to him to cut down the trees) and attacks the Imperial troops. His fellow Wookies join in and the kill a half dozen armed troopers/prison gaurds, take two prisoners, and head into the woods.

I awarded no Conflict. He was standing up to his oppressors, saving the elder, and trying to escape. I suppose he could have tried a coercion check or maybe stunning the opponents rather than beam cutting them in half. Would you have awarded conflict?

Yeah this doesn't feel like a Conflict worthy situation, as described. He didn't engage in excessive violence for personal enjoyment or profit, was trying to defend another innocent, and was doing so against an agency that had enslaved them. MAAAAYBE 1-2 conflict, if things got especially gruesome, like he went out of his way to "pay them back for what they did to us!!" kind of thing.

Again, my reading on Conflict, isn't just "Right/Wrong", it's more "Did doing this likely disturb the character's psyche? Make them more likely to have a fundamental shift in worldview/personality, as a result?" If yes, then Conflict.

42 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

"Well in my character's mind, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, murdering people and skinning them alive, so I don't see why I should be punished for it." Is such a common type of defensive statement that I've heard over the years, that I've lost count. T

I totally agree with this. I guess I was just pointing out that his motivation in this case was truly "justice" and in this case it was a death sentence, carried out immediately. I don't know if its was a fully justified killing but it's not exactly the same thing as outright murder for selfish reasons (though vengeance is selfish). My player wasn't trying to convince me that it was his PCs version of justice but rather that "justice" is always going to be interpreted through a lens and subject to debate. Plus, as has arisen earlier (and may be a point of contention): Something can be the right thing to do and still warrant conflict, which really speaks to your point. In either case, probably still worthy of 10 conflict.

Also, in this scenario, it was quite clear that the local authorities were in the pocket of the aristocrat. So he felt compelled to act, or so that's how I interpreted it.

I like your take on Conflict. Some basic questions you can ask the player:

Would the average person feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Would a Jedi feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Is your character going to be able to sleep at night?

Or more nuanced:

Even if this is the right thing to do, is your character conflicted about this?

It's sounds to me, @VadersMarchKazoo, like you're not implementing the PCs Moral Strength as instructed or as intended by the makers of the game. Also, the name of a PCs Career should never factor into whether or not you assign Conflict to an action.

The Moral Strength is only factored in to Morality/Conflict, IF you're using the optional Triggering Morality rule. And then, it only serves as a "notice" to you as GM that all Conflict is doubled at the end of the session, when the Strength or Weakness came into play.

The Moral Strength never defines what is "OK" for a PC to do in a given situation. You must look to the situation for that.

ie Just because your Moral Strength is Justice, doesn't mean you can murder "in the name of" any situation where you see in-justice. Same goes with Freedom.

1) sounds like anywhere from 12-30+ Conflict, IMO

2) is at least 1 Conflict, and then the problem becomes - once you've started a fight - the enemy is just defending themselves, so it's really hard to argue that any killing following your initiation of combat isn't thereby murder...

All of this is highly subject to the tone you want to set for your campaign though...

17 minutes ago, emsquared said:

It's sounds to me, @VadersMarchKazoo, like you're not implementing the PCs Moral Strength as instructed or as intended by the makers of the game. Also, the name of a PCs Career should never factor into whether or not you assign Conflict to an action.

The Moral Strength is only factored in to Morality/Conflict, IF you're using the optional Triggering Morality rule. And then, it only serves as a "notice" to you as GM that all Conflict is doubled at the end of the session.

The Moral Strength never defines what is "OK" for a PC to do in a given situation. You must look to the situation for that.

ie Just because your Moral Strength is Justice, doesn't mean you can murder "in the name of" any situation where you see in-justice. Same goes with Freedom.

1) sounds like anywhere from 12-30+ Conflict, IMO

2) is at least 1 Conflict, and then the problem becomes - once you've started a fight - the enemy is just defending themselves, so it's really hard to argue that any killing following your initiation of combat isn't thereby murder...

All of this is highly subject to the time you want to set for your campaign though...

Sorry, I misspoke and perhaps misled you. I meant that my PCs motivations were Justice and Freedom respectively. That was more for flavor and context than to justify their actions. I didn't use these to evaluate the relative amount of the conflict awarded, per se. But context is important in moral dilemmas.

Also, as far as using Moral Strength/Weakness as intended. I fully disagree. The point of this is to provide your PCs with situations that provide player choice that is in-line with the strength and weakness. That's exactly what it's for. That's why the PCs were put in these situations. But again, I had misspoke earlier so I get the confusion. Technically the moral strength/weaknesses for the Executioner are Justice/Mercilessness? (I think) and Bravery/Recklessness for the Wookie.

Edit: Original post edited.

3 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Also, the name of a PCs Career should never factor into whether or not you assign Conflict to an action.

This isn't what it says in Knights of Fate.

The thought here I think is that a Warrior is going to be less conflicted on a battlefield taking a life than a doctor.

You're welcome to let your PC s murder because they think it's justified, and you're welcome to base your Conflict on OOC nomenclature.

I'm just telling you how 1) the book advises you to run it, and 2) what I've found yields a healthy Morality mechanic in my years of learning with and running the system.

What you're doing is counter to both those things.

The primary complaint people have with the Morality system is that it's too easy to become a Paragon. And what you're doing - allowing your PCs to define what is right and wrong - is going to yield this problem. With players that murder their way there no less.

If that's what you want, great. Proceed as you are.

37 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I totally agree with this. I guess I was just pointing out that his motivation in this case was truly "justice" and in this case it was a death sentence, carried out immediately. I don't know if its was a fully justified killing but it's not exactly the same thing as outright murder for selfish reasons (though vengeance is selfish). My player wasn't trying to convince me that it was his PCs version of justice but rather that "justice" is always going to be interpreted through a lens and subject to debate. Plus, as has arisen earlier (and may be a point of contention): Something can be the right thing to do and still warrant conflict, which really speaks to your point. In either case, probably still worthy of 10 conflict.

Also, in this scenario, it was quite clear that the local authorities were in the pocket of the aristocrat. So he felt compelled to act, or so that's how I interpreted it.

I like your take on Conflict. Some basic questions you can ask the player:

Would the average person feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Would a Jedi feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Is your character going to be able to sleep at night?

Or more nuanced:

Even if this is the right thing to do, is your character conflicted about this?

Yeah I'm just going off the original description, which was a bare bones breakdown of the scene. Intent is important yes, but the mental image I had, based on your description, was more one of a classic "And then I killed them all for what they did." bathed in their blood kind of scene. Which would be worth more per action. Again, Morality, and making judgement calls on it with a metric system is a very sticky thing in gaming, so there is never one good answer, it's all fluid and based on the situation, at least in my book. I still think it was worth a lot of Conflict, simply due to what was being done.

But yeah, personally, I find the "did this action mess with your head" angle of judging conflict/morality, to be effective, if only because it tends to limit the number of arguments about if something should be "good/bad". When the question isn't good/bad, but more 'disturbing/troubling', in my experience, most of my players , after thinking about it for a minute, will usually agree. I try and say "If you just did that, do you think you would be troubled by it?" to the player, and that helps too.

Though again, it is a fantasy story, where battle and death are way more immediate than real life, so there is always some give and take to it. But if the PC is designed to be a "reasonably normal, average, decent person with a normal psyche", a LOT of the stuff we casually do in gaming would mess with them deeply.

5 hours ago, emsquared said:

Just because Jedis do it, and the Code allows for it, doesn't mean it can't generate Conflict.

Again, your intellectual dishonesty shining theough tremendously bright.

Just like your earlier false assertion that "because we saw a Lightside Jedi do it in the movies means it doesn't cause Conflict".

So blatantly false and disingenuous.

Just makin' yourself look worse and worse here.

Also, pretty sure that grasping at straws in something not even classifiable as a Legends publication is a crystal clear sign you're so completely wrong - as if RAW wasn't enough for game purposes.

Yes, it does. The entire point of the Jedi Code is to work with the Will of the Force, and maintain yourself on the side of Light. It demands selflessness, and working for the good of others, not your own self interests. Yes, some Jedi stepped over the line. YEs, some Jedi gained Conflict and even turned to the Dark Side. However, those that did so, failed to follow the Jedi Code, and gave in to selfish desire, fear, anger, hate, and/or greed.

4 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

The truth hurts Luke because of the lies told by Obi-Wan and upheld by Yoda. He might not have been emotionally ready the first time he meets Obi-Wan, but he would have needed this information before he left Dagobah. Telling him the truth might even have convinced him to stay, rather than following the Jedi path of being obtuse with information and keeping the truth hidden. He wasn't really needed at Bespin since Leia and Chewbacca gets away without him, he doesn't stop Han from being taken away and the whole thing is pretty much just a failure.

Lying to him about his father caused greater harm, it's only the lie that made the truth into a weapon. As for your source, I can't find a book with said title or any information about the author. I'm sure both exist since you usually don't reference stuff that doesn't exist, but it must have been a rather minor thing which could be classed as glorified fanfiction (like many things old EU).

The truth only becomes a weapon if it's obfuscated, which is why the Sith love lying and telling the truth both. They make people question what is real and doubt everything they see and hear. Jedi prefer half-truths and building up a rumor of being invincible and all-knowing.

Wrong. Just the opposite. While Luke was disappointed that Obi Wan lied to him, Yoda was very explicit in telling him why Obi Wan lied to him, and why it was unfortunate that Vader told him the truth when he did. To quote"

Yoda: "Told you did he?"

Luke: "Yes."

Yoda: "Unexpected this is, and unfortunate."

Luke: "Unfortunate that I know the truth?"

Yoda: "No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him; that incomplete was your training; that not ready for the burden were you."

Obi Wan lied to Luke because Luke was not ready emotionally to know the whole truth. So lying to him, telling him that Anakin was killed by Vader, was the right thing to do and was not worthy of Conflict. This is because, as proven in ESB, learning the real truth was far more devastating and crippling. It wasn't learning that Obi Wan lied to him that hurt Luke. It was learning that his father was a monster, and one of the most evil men in the galaxy. That is what hurt Luke. It was something he was not ready for, and which was told to him with the express purpose of causing him pain and suffering. So, this is a clear example of the lie being the right thing to do, and the truth being the wrong thing to do. Vader got Conflict for telling the truth, Obi Wan got no Conflict for lying. That is because Obi Wan's lie was for Luke's benefit, Vader's truth was for Luke's suffering. Lying for the right reasons, for the benefit of others well being is never Conflict worthy. Period.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Eh, I disagree that he's cheating for his own personal greed. He's stranded on a planet with zero currency, and they are needed elsewhere because of the political situation on Naboo with the Trade Federation. That entire act of the film hinges on the plot point of "Our ship is broken, we need a new part to get back to what we were actually trying to do...and we have no money." So it's not greed so much as desperation/duty that is driving him. That being said, I'd still give him conflict, for cheating, and I would give him conflict for bartering for slaves, and deciding to take one instead of the other. His motives are mostly good, though you could argue that his desire to take Anakin isn't 100% altruistic. He does see potential in the boy, based on the beliefs of his Order. But it's still being done to try and get the child out of a crappy situation. He's just willing to leave the mother in that same crappy situation to get him out.

So at my table, both of those actions would garner conflict, but not as much as it would if he were trying to get the child just to have a child slave for his own uses, and was willing to cheat to get him.

Qui Gon certainly did not cheat for personal gain. As such, no Conflict is warranted at all. In fact, according to the lore, Watto's chance cube was weighted anyway. So, Qui Gon's action simply evened the playing field.

4 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

I would agree with this. I just disagreed with the fact that he wouldn't have gained conflict from it because of a Greater Good. A conflict in the Republic is hardly something that should be of any greater interest of the Force, the Force doesn't seem likely to have any political preferences or being in favour of one hegemonic rule or another. Otherwise all Jedi probably get knowing inaction all the time for allowing Hutt space to keep going.

While not every action taken for the "greater good" can be considered free from Conflict, Those are really only cases of such actions that are never justified. These include torture, excessive violence and property destruction, and murder. Lying, cheating, even theft and fraud, if done for noble and selfless reasons, are free from Conflict. Period.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Which is fine, just wanted to point out your wording of his actions being driven by "personal greed" weren't really accurate, based on his motivations in the film. They weren't absolutely pure, no, but not greed. He was more than happy to try and pay for the parts, but the person refused to take his money, which left him in a bind. And the idea of gambling was presented to him by Anakin's mother, as the idea of gambling for what he needed genuinely didn't occur to him until someone pointed it out as an option. And, he did TRY and get them both free, but again, the person refused to that price, so he had to make a choice. An unpleasant choice about human trafficking and slavery, but a choice. He could've refused, and tried some other option that might've freed both Anakin and his mother, but he chose to leave her behind. Which she was happy for, as it meant her son was free, but it's still not a "sunshine and rainbows" result, for her or Qui-Gon He clearly wasn't happy about what he had to do, and it bothered him. Thus, to me, that translates to "a little conflict" because "nobody who deals in human trafficking comes away totally clean." And sometimes, the GM presents players with no good options. It's a perfectly reasonable way to present an issue. If the player is clever enough to out-think the GM, and find a 3rd option, kudos to the player, and they should be rewarded. But it's a big, mean galaxy out there, and sometimes, you can't get out of a situation without getting a little dirty as a result.

Which isn't a punishment to the player or PC at my table, it just reflects they are Conflicted about what they had to do.

Being unhappy about a situation and being "Conflicted" over it are two different things. So, him being "unhappy" about leaving Shmi does not translate to Conflict.

2 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Here are two recent examples of situations that I had at my table. At the end, I was wondering if I got the conflict correct. Both of these were played as flashback scenes in our new F&D campaign. None of the PCs depicted in these events are "Jedi" (and no animals were harmed in the making of this game).

1) A Human Gunslinger/Executioner with the Motivation of Justice returns to a homestead of friends and finds it burned down and actively mined by the mining guild. Skipping ahead a bit he coerces the local sheriff and the local aristocrat from the mining guild to let the family out of jail and to give them some money (a petty amount). When he actually meets the family at the jail he's told the daughter was killed by the aristocrat to 'make an example'. The gunslinger kills the deputy, maims the sheriff, drives the mining vehicle (similar to the Ore Hauler used in Rebels Season 4) into the aristocrats house and kills his two thug guards. Then he uses stun grenades to knock out the aristocrat, walks him to the balcony, puts a noose around his neck and (when he wakes up) kicks him off the balcony.

I awarded 5 conflict for the hanging but that should probably have been 10 for murder. Otherwise I didn't really award any conflict for all that mayhem. He did all of that in the name of 'justice'. I guess I could have added conflict for the Coercion, killing the thugs and maiming the sheriff in a gunfight. He probably would have been a dark sider before the game even started:) Anyways, yes I was probably easy. But he is an executioner/gunslinger and he was doing what he believed was 'just'.

2) We have Wookie Colossus with a Motivation of Freedom. Shortly after order 66, he was imprisoned on Kashyyyk with his fellow Wookies. One day he's taken to a labor camp work site to cut down a stand of sacred trees. One of the fellow slaves, and elder Wookie, refuses to work and is subsequently beat down by the Imperial troops. The PC steps in with a Plasma Beam cutter (provided to him to cut down the trees) and attacks the Imperial troops. His fellow Wookies join in and the kill a half dozen armed troopers/prison gaurds, take two prisoners, and head into the woods.

I awarded no Conflict. He was standing up to his oppressors, saving the elder, and trying to escape. I suppose he could have tried a coercion check or maybe stunning the opponents rather than beam cutting them in half. Would you have awarded conflict?

Yep. As others have said, that first guy should have gotten at least 10 Conflict, if not more. The Wookiee, on the other hand would get no Conflict for his actions.

52 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I totally agree with this. I guess I was just pointing out that his motivation in this case was truly "justice" and in this case it was a death sentence, carried out immediately. I don't know if its was a fully justified killing but it's not exactly the same thing as outright murder for selfish reasons (though vengeance is selfish). My player wasn't trying to convince me that it was his PCs version of justice but rather that "justice" is always going to be interpreted through a lens and subject to debate. Plus, as has arisen earlier (and may be a point of contention): Something can be the right thing to do and still warrant conflict, which really speaks to your point. In either case, probably still worthy of 10 conflict.

Also, in this scenario, it was quite clear that the local authorities were in the pocket of the aristocrat. So he felt compelled to act, or so that's how I interpreted it.

I like your take on Conflict. Some basic questions you can ask the player:

Would the average person feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Would a Jedi feel conflicted or remorseful about the action?

Is your character going to be able to sleep at night?

Or more nuanced:

Even if this is the right thing to do, is your character conflicted about this?

Wrong. If an action is the right thing to do, done for the right reasons, there is no Conflict warranted. Ever. Conflict is to be given only for doing wrong, giving in to greed, malice, fear, aggression. That is what generates Conflict. Lying to protect someone, whether from actual danger, or even knowledge that they are not emotionally ready to handle, is not Conflict worthy. Lying to prevent a fight is not Conflict worthy. Lying to save someone from personal humiliation or embarrassment is not Conflict worthy. By contrast, lying for selfish greed is Conflict worthy. Lying to cause harm is Conflict worthy. Lying to swindle someone out of their rightful property for your own personal gain, is Conflict worthy.

Simply put, lying, cheating, defrauding, even theft, if done for a righteous aim, If done for the benefit of others' welfare, rather than for personal gain, warrant no Conflict. Period