43 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

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.

I tend to follow is it within the objective Will of the Force. Would the Will of the Force consider said action right or wrong. That is the determining factor.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

If you think a person wouldn't be conflicted about having to make a choice to leave another sentient being in slavery, and live with the fact that they made that choice, then you are more disconnected from human emotions than I realized.

1 minute ago, KungFuFerret said:

If you think a person wouldn't be conflicted about having to make a choice to leave another sentient being in slavery, and live with the fact that they made that choice, then you are more disconnected from human emotions than I realized.

Actually, this is also covered in the lore and in the movies. Qui Gon even told them that he was not there to free slaves. Not only that, but he had no authority to do so either because Tatooine was not part of the Republic and thus he had no jurisdiction. In the afore mentioned D20 PotJSB, to tells the story of a Jedi master and Padawan taking a trip to Nal Hutta on a diplomatic mission, and later to Ord Mantell. On Nal Hutta, they witness slaves being beaten and mistreated, but the Master does nothing. However, on Ord Mantell, when he sees a store keeper beating a servant, he steps in and stops the shop keeper. When the padawan later questions him about it, he tells the padawan that if it were within his power to do so, he would have freed the slaves of Nal Hutta. However, since Nal Hutta was outside of Republic jurisdiction, and gfiven that slavery is legal in Hutt Space, and an integral part of their culture, he had no authority nor right to do so, and doing so would be passing judgement upon the Hutts culture. However, Ord Mantell is a Republic world, and slavery is illegal in the Republic. As such, the shop keeper had no right to mistreat his servant, and the Jedi had the full authority to step in.

This is the same situation that Qui Gon was in. He had neither the means nor authority to free Shmi Skywalker, nor any of the other slaves, since Tatooine was outside of Republic jurisdiction. So, whether he liked it or not, Qui Gon couldn't free Shim even if he wanted to, and thus, bu RAW, and by the lore, leaving her theire was the right course of action, and thus not worthy of Conflict in the eyes of the Force.

As for being "disconnected from Human emotions". A Jedi is not supposed to let "human emotions" cloud his judgement. He's supposed to see things objectively, to see things as the Force does. So human emotion has nothing to do with whether Qui Gon should or shouldn't get Conflict. The only thing that determines it was whether it was the right thing to do at the moment, given Qui Gon's circumstances, abilities, and authority, and the Will of the Force. Human emotion does not factor into it at all.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Yes, so too can the Players also step over the line. That's what happens (or not) in gameplay.

And RAW tells us, there is a gray area even when acting to help others. Arguably that area would be something like "I benefit from X, and since I'm trying to achieve that goal, that goal benefits from X".

Only some lies may be told in the aid of others, not all. That is also RAW.

From there it is up to the GM to decide where that line is.

Thanks again, for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty and proving yourself wrong. Again.

58 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, this is also covered in the lore and in the movies. Qui Gon even told them that he was not there to free slaves. Not only that, but he had no authority to do so either because Tatooine was not part of the Republic and thus he had no jurisdiction. In the afore mentioned D20 PotJSB, to tells the story of a Jedi master and Padawan taking a trip to Nal Hutta on a diplomatic mission, and later to Ord Mantell. On Nal Hutta, they witness slaves being beaten and mistreated, but the Master does nothing. However, on Ord Mantell, when he sees a store keeper beating a servant, he steps in and stops the shop keeper. When the padawan later questions him about it, he tells the padawan that if it were within his power to do so, he would have freed the slaves of Nal Hutta. However, since Nal Hutta was outside of Republic jurisdiction, and gfiven that slavery is legal in Hutt Space, and an integral part of their culture, he had no authority nor right to do so, and doing so would be passing judgement upon the Hutts culture. However, Ord Mantell is a Republic world, and slavery is illegal in the Republic. As such, the shop keeper had no right to mistreat his servant, and the Jedi had the full authority to step in.

This is the same situation that Qui Gon was in. He had neither the means nor authority to free Shmi Skywalker, nor any of the other slaves, since Tatooine was outside of Republic jurisdiction. So, whether he liked it or not, Qui Gon couldn't free Shim even if he wanted to, and thus, bu RAW, and by the lore, leaving her theire was the right course of action, and thus not worthy of Conflict in the eyes of the Force.

As for being "disconnected from Human emotions". A Jedi is not supposed to let "human emotions" cloud his judgement. He's supposed to see things objectively, to see things as the Force does. So human emotion has nothing to do with whether Qui Gon should or shouldn't get Conflict. The only thing that determines it was whether it was the right thing to do at the moment, given Qui Gon's circumstances, abilities, and authority, and the Will of the Force. Human emotion does not factor into it at all.

Your dogmatic, rigid concept of the world truly does disturb me on so many levels. Emotion has nothing to do with whether a Force user should/shouldn't get conflict....yeah, right....ok.

39 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for being "disconnected from Human emotions". A Jedi is not supposed to let "human emotions" cloud his judgement. He's supposed to see things objectively, to see things as the Force does. So human emotion has nothing to do with whether Qui Gon should or shouldn't get Conflict. The only thing that determines it was whether it was the right thing to do at the moment, given Qui Gon's circumstances, abilities, and authority, and the Will of the Force. Human emotion does not factor into it at all. 

Well, Obi-wan and Yoda tried to stop Luke's human very emotion to not kill his father. I'd say that RoTJ kinda sorta implies that they were wrong trying to dissuade him from feeling.

Essentially, the ways of the Jedi order we see in the prequels are implied to be wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need to "bring balance to the force". The Jedi had become mired in dogma and cold objectiveness and lost touch with their compassion. So we should probably not hold up the prequel-era jedi as paragons of virtue when the films clearly tells us that they were not. Not darksiders, mind you, but flawed.

24 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Yes, so too can the Players also step over the line. That's what happens (or not) in gameplay.

And RAW tells us, there is a gray area even when acting to help others. Arguably that area would be something like "I benefit from X, and since I'm trying to achieve that goal, that goal benefits from X".

Only some lies may be told in the aid of others, not all. That is also RAW.

From there it is up to the GM to decide where that line is.

Thanks again, for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty and proving yourself wrong. Again.

Wrong on all counts. The table on 324 of the core rules specifically say that lies for personal gain warrant Conflict. Lies told for selfish reason, for greed, for malicious intent. those cause Conflict. A Jedi is allowed to lie if it is for a noble cause. If it is to help others, if it is for the benefit of others' well being. Those do not ever gain Conflict. Either the lie was for selfish reasons, and therefore gains Conflict, or it was for a noble cause, which means no Conflict. There is no in between. The table on 324 specifically states that the PC gains Conflict for telling lies for selfish reason or to benefit himself. Lying to avoid combat, to protect others, for the well being of others, does not gain Conflict. The passage is saying that some lies can be told without Conflict penalty. These lies are those that benefit others, such as avoiding combat or protecting others. That is what the rules say. It is not that only some lies which benefit others are free from Conflict. It is that some lies are free from Conflict, those being the ones told to benefit others rather than yourself. That is what the rules are saying. There is no grey area. It is either selfish or selfless. You are either lying for personal gain, and thus gaining Conflict, or you are lying for the sake of others welfare, which garners no Conflict. It's one or the other.

7 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Your dogmatic, rigid concept of the world truly does disturb me on so many levels. Emotion has nothing to do with whether a Force user should/shouldn't get conflict....yeah, right....ok.

IF a Force user is allowing his or her emotions to cloud his or her judgement, then that Force user is giving in to the Dark Side. While a Jedi can feel emotions, a Jedi is required to put those emotions aside and see things objectively. A Jedi is to strive to see things as the Force does without emotions clouding his or her judgement. That is spelled out in the Jedi Code and in every treatise within the lore on the Jedi way. So yes, letting your emotions cloud your judgement is what garners Conflict. IF you do what is objectively right in the eyes of the Force, and you set aside emotion, look at the issue objectively, and take the action required, not what your emotions tell you, then no Conflict is given.

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

Well, Obi-wan and Yoda tried to stop Luke's human very emotion to not kill his father. I'd say that RoTJ kinda sorta implies that they were wrong trying to dissuade him from feeling.

Essentially, the ways of the Jedi order we see in the prequels are implied to be wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need to "bring balance to the force". The Jedi had become mired in dogma and cold objectiveness and lost touch with their compassion. So we should probably not hold up the prequel-era jedi as paragons of virtue when the films clearly tells us that they were not. Not darksiders, mind you, but flawed.

Obi Wan and Yoda felt that Vader was forever lost. In that sense yes, they were wrong. Regardless, they truly believed that Vader was beyond redemption.

However, they were not wrong in initially lying to Luke about his father being killed by Vader. Had Obi Wan told Luke about Vader from the beginning, Luke would have been emotionally crushed. Imagine what a young, innocent boy like Luke would have felt, and possibly done, had he been told right from the start that Darth Vader, one of the most evil men in the galaxy, was his father. It could easily have resulted in him turning to the Dark Side, or being captured by the Empire long before he had any training. Luke was not ready to hear that. He wasn't even ready when Vader revealed it on Bespin. It wasn't until he had time to reflect, on it, and then question Yoda about it, that he was ready. The fact that he apologized to Yoda for his actions, accepted Yoda's reasoning, and had the wisdom and compassion to believe that Vader could be redeemed, that showed that he was finally ready for the truth. Thus, Obi Wan's "lie" was for a good reason, it was the right thing to do, and was done for the right reasons, and therefore free from Conflict.

36 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Qui Gon even told them that he was not there to free slaves. Not only that, but he had no authority to do so either because Tatooine was not part of the Republic and thus he had no jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and orders do not have a bearing on right and wrong. Many soldiers have stood by and watched atrocities because they didn't have the orders to intercede. I bet they felt conflicted. Just because your orders say something doesn't mean they are morally correct. Ahsoka was conflicted when the Jedi order didn't allow her to intercede on Onderon since she was just there as a trainer. If I remember right, she eventually disobeyed those orders.

Also, many of your comments are quite absolute: Telling others they are wrong, using words like always and never. I would add the caveat, "always or never...at my table". This topic is interesting because it is complex and much depends on your point of view.

8 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Also, many of your comments are quite absolute: Telling others they are wrong, using words like always and never. I would add the caveat, "always or never...at my table". This topic is interesting because it is complex and much depends on your point of view.

Well, isn't it Jedi who deal in absolutes?

Just now, penpenpen said:

Well, isn't it Jedi who deal in absolutes?

That is a little funny actually. Given the absolute nature of Obi's statement. Hmmmm hypocracy?

Just now, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Jurisdiction and orders do not have a bearing on right and wrong. Many soldiers have stood by and watched atrocities because they didn't have the orders to intercede. I bet they felt conflicted. Just because your orders say something doesn't mean they are morally correct. Ahsoka was conflicted when the Jedi order didn't allow her to intercede on Onderon since she was just there as a trainer. If I remember right, she eventually disobeyed those orders.

Also, many of your comments are quite absolute: Telling others they are wrong, using words like always and never. I would add the caveat, "always or never...at my table". This topic is interesting because it is complex and much depends on your point of view.

Nope. Given the actual texts in the examples I've given, there was no Conflict. And "human morals" have nothing to do with it. It is what the Force considers objectively right or wrong which is most important, and what is within a Jedi's power to do as well. This is also why the first thing listed on the Conflict table is Knowing Inaction. If a Jedi allows evil actions (actions worth 5 Conflict or more) that are within his power to prevent to occur, then he gains Conflict. However, if it is beyond his or her power to stop it, then no Conflict is warranted. This includes interfering in the culture of the Hutts where slavery is legal and an integral part of their culture. As the Master in the example says, the Republic knew about the Slavery going on in Hutt Space. Should the Senate ever decide to do something about it, he tells his padawan, that Master said he would be the first one there to free the slaves and personally escort them to their home worlds. Otherwise, he had no right, authority, nor power to interfere with the Hutt's culture, particularly on their home world. As such, not interfering with the treatment of their slaves would not garner Conflict in that situation, just as Qui Gon not freeing Shmi Skywalker would not garner him Conflict. In both cases, freeing the slaves in question was beyond that Jedi's power and authority.

It also includes another example given in the RCRB of a Jedi dealing with the Colicoids for starship parts after said Colicoids had previously killed and eaten one of said Jedi's associates. Eating other sentient species is simply part of the Colicoids' nature, to do otherwise would be unnatural. To seek revenge for his associate's death would have been passing judgement on another culture and giving in to anger and hate. And to not deal with them to gain the parts he needed to fix his ship would only be punishing himself.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And "human morals" have nothing to do with it. It is what the Force considers objectively right or wrong which is most important, and what is within a Jedi's power to do as well

Above conflicts with below.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

To seek revenge for his associate's death would have been passing judgement on another culture and giving in to anger and hate.

I just am not grasping this. Are you saying that what's right and wrong depends on the culture of the beings involved? The Sith are a culture. Do you need to respect their culture?

I agree that right vs wrong depends on the cultural lens. And that humans have different social constructs/values than those seen in nature (and presumably among alien species). But it seems that (in SW) the Force has a basic sense of good and evil (which just happens to be largely consistent with those in western society) and so it would seem to follow that certain cultures could adhere to that set of standards closer than others, or at least be on closer to one end of the light dark spectrum. The Night Sisters of Dathomir are a culture too.

So I guess the question is: Is the Force objective or is it culturally sensitive?

This all hinges on the fact that there is a "Will of the Force" which implies that it is some sort of pseudo-sentient being in itself.

@Tramp Graphics, please point to these absolute terms that you're using: always, never, fully, so on, in the text.

You cannot, because they are not there, and are nothing more than your interpretation.

However, text describing use of the rules to the contrary, ie. the presence of varying degrees: some, gray areas, overly-, overtly, abound in the RAW.

You're not even clinging to your precious RAW anymore, cuz you see it doesn't support you.

You dropped stealing immediately, cuz you were blatantly wrong there.

The only reason you're able to count to lieing here, is because of the very gray areas you insist don't exist.

You are just wrong.

9 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Above conflicts with below.

I just am not grasping this. Are you saying that what's right and wrong depends on the culture of the beings involved? The Sith are a culture. Do you need to respect their culture?

I agree that right vs wrong depends on the cultural lens. And that humans have different social constructs/values than those seen in nature (and presumably among alien species). But it seems that (in SW) the Force has a basic sense of good and evil (which just happens to be largely consistent with those in western society) and so it would seem to follow that certain cultures could adhere to that set of standards closer than others, or at least be on closer to one end of the light dark spectrum. The Night Sisters of Dathomir are a culture too.

So I guess the question is: Is the Force objective or is it culturally sensitive?

This all hinges on the fact that there is a "Will of the Force" which implies that it is some sort of pseudo-sentient being in itself.

No, it doesn't. A Jedi is not to pass judgment on anyone. They can mediate, they can protect, they can fight if necessary, but they cannot pass judgement. That is what I am saying. What the Sith do in trying to conquer and enslave the galaxy is objectively evil. This is because it threatens the balance of the Force itself. It threatens life and the natural order of the galaxy. This isn't a judgement of the Jedi, much less any single Jedi. The Force itself has an objective view of what is good and what is evil. This has nothing to do with "culture". A Jedi must look beyond their own personal or cultural morals and look at what is the Will of the Force, what the Force deems "good" or "evil". The Force is objective. The issue also stems from what is within a given Jedi's power and authority to do as well. Aside from the "moral implications", or objective "right' or "wrong", of a course of action, there is another very important reason why Jedi cannot act as "judge and jury" and why they only act as mediators and defenders. That is because the Galaxy suffers the Jedi to exist. The Jedi exist solely because they have the good will of the people. They only have the authority that the people of the galaxy grant them. The Force does not grant them the authority to do their jobs, that is granted by the Republic by the will and trust of the people. Thus, a Jedi cannot go beyond his mandate. He cannot take the law into his own hands. He cannot pass judgment on other cultures.

2 minutes ago, emsquared said:

@Tramp Graphics, please point to these absolute terms that you're using: always, never, fully, so on, in the text.

You cannot, because they are not there, and are nothing more than your interpretation.

However, text describing use of the rules to the contrary, ie. the presence of varying degrees: some, gray areas, overly-, overtly, abound in the RAW.

You're not even clinging to your precious RAW anymore, cuz you see it doesn't support you.

You dropped stealing immediately, cuz you were blatantly wrong there.

The only reason you're able to count to lieing here, is because of the very gray areas you insist don't exist.

You are just wrong.

Wrong. The "shades of grey" you claim to see are only your personal viewpoints. The book is very clear that only lies for personal gain, garner Conflict. Lies intended for the benefit of others, for their protection, to avoid unnecessary combat, do not garner Conflict. There is no grey area there. It's one or the other. The same is true of Theft. Are you stealing for your own personal gain? If so, Conflict. Are you stealing from a corrupt Imperial Moff in order to give back to those he's oppressing? No Conflict. Are you stealing from the poor out of malice, to line your own pockets and to inflict suffering? Double or triple the Conflict. Simple. No grey there. The only "grey" areas when it comes to lies and theft is the intent of the act. That is where the "grey" lies. This is the same with killing. Are you killing for self defense or the defense of others? No Conflict. Are you killing someone out of premeditated malice? 10 Conflict or more. It's that simple. It all comes down to if the act is selfish or selfless.

Some acts are intrinsically good or evil. Torture is intrinsically evil, no matter the reason. unprovoked violence is intrinsically evil. Excessive property destruction, cruelty to animals, are intrinsically evil. These always garner Conflict, a lot of Conflict.

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is because the Galaxy suffers the Jedi to exist. The Jedi exist solely because they have the good will of the people. They only have the authority that the people of the galaxy grant them. The Force does not grant them the authority to do their jobs, that is granted by the Republic by the will and trust of the people. Thus, a Jedi cannot go beyond his mandate. He cannot take the law into his own hands.

This is largely contextual. We're playing a dark times campaign. I'm pretty sure neither the people, senate nor Emperor have granted the Jedi authority to do anything, quite the opposite. That doesn't mean they don't have a moral obligation to do what they believe is right, assuming they survived the purge. Luke certainly doesn't have a mandate from the people to destroy the Death Star. Quite the opposite, he is a member of the Rebellion that is breaking a large number of Imperial laws all the time. You may argue that Luke is 'not a Jedi' but certainly he is guided by one. So, yes, Jedi can break the laws of society, but try not to break the laws (or will) of the force. This means that they could absolutely 'take the law into their hands' if they deemed the force wills it or they feel morally obligated.

It's important to disentangle "laws" with "values".

5 hours ago, emsquared said:

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

Conflict side bar page 75 of Knights of Fate:

"To avoid having the warrior amass Conflict merely to due to the nature of this carreer choice, the GM should keep in mind how practiced the PC is at combat. Fighting and even killing are things the PC has likely deliberated before if not experienced.....and are able to keep their emotions under control during a fight.....the GM may decide to go easy on the Warrior when applying conflict points in combat situations. By doing so the GM allows the Warrior to shine"

24 minutes ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

This is largely contextual. We're playing a dark times campaign. I'm pretty sure neither the people, senate nor Emperor have granted the Jedi authority to do anything, quite the opposite. That doesn't mean they don't have a moral obligation to do what they believe is right, assuming they survived the purge. Luke certainly doesn't have a mandate from the people to destroy the Death Star. Quite the opposite, he is a member of the Rebellion that is breaking a large number of Imperial laws all the time. You may argue that Luke is 'not a Jedi' but certainly he is guided by one. So, yes, Jedi can break the laws of society, but try not to break the laws (or will) of the force. This means that they could absolutely 'take the law into their hands' if they deemed the force wills it or they feel morally obligated.

It's important to disentangle "laws" with "values".

As I said, though, it's not a given character's "morals" that determine whether it is Conflict worthy or not. It's the Will of the Force. Yes, in the Dark Times of the Empire, the Jedi don't have the authority they had previously. That isn't an issue. And, yes, the examples I gave were specifically from a time when the Jedi were at the height of their power. Once again, however, that isn't the primary issue. The Code still stands and is what a Jedi needs to follow regardless of the era. The Empire has to be stopped because it threatens the natural order and balance of the Galaxy. It is unjust not simply from a "human" perspective. It threatens the very Force itself. A Jedi during the Dark times has to still keep in mind that if he hopes to bring the Jedi back to their former status as defenders of peace and justice in the galaxy, they will still have to do so at the suffrage of the people. They will only have the authority that the people of the galaxy allow them to have. That means he cannot arbitrarily or unilaterally interfere with other cultures. And yes, even during the time of the Republic, a Jedi could, if he were following the Will of the Force, a Jedi could "break the law". However, he can't do so simply because of his own personal morals. Regardless, he would still have to face the legal consequences for that action.

3 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I just am not grasping this. Are you saying that what's right and wrong depends on the culture of the beings involved? The Sith are a culture. Do you need to respect their culture?

I have Tramp on Ignore, so I only see his stuff when others quote it. This seems like more of his inane babble. The Force is totally objective in what is right and wrong, but it pays attention to lines on maps? The argument that the Jedi's authority comes from the Force is foolish. They were given authority from the Republic. That is why they had to look at lines on maps, not because of the Force. Situations where giving into the demands of the Republic rather than doing the right thing as dictated by the Force are going to be sources of Conflict.

Conflict has nothing to do with legality. A Jedi chasing a mass murderer/war criminal/Bill Cosby that claims diplomatic immunity (and that immunity is recognized by the Republic) can't just shrug and say, "well the will of the Force is that we just let him go do more bad stuff" without Conflict. Jedi that were bound from acting against the Sith by the Treaty of Coruscant (TOR) were getting Conflict all the time for letting people suffer on worlds surrendered to the Sith.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. The "shades of grey" you claim to see are only your personal viewpoints. The book is very clear that only lies for personal gain, garner Conflict. Lies intended for the benefit of others, for their protection, to avoid unnecessary combat, do not garner Conflict. There is no grey area there. It's one or the other. The same is true of Theft. Are you stealing for your own personal gain? If so, Conflict. Are you stealing from a corrupt Imperial Moff in order to give back to those he's oppressing? No Conflict. Are you stealing from the poor out of malice, to line your own pockets and to inflict suffering? Double or triple the Conflict. Simple. No grey there. The only "grey" areas when it comes to lies and theft is the intent of the act. That is where the "grey" lies. This is the same with killing. Are you killing for self defense or the defense of others? No Conflict. Are you killing someone out of premeditated malice? 10 Conflict or more. It's that simple. It all comes down to if the act is selfish or selfless.

Some acts are intrinsically good or evil. Torture is intrinsically evil, no matter the reason. unprovoked violence is intrinsically evil. Excessive property destruction, cruelty to animals, are intrinsically evil. These always garner Conflict, a lot of Conflict.

Still can't make your argument without adding words and concepts I see.

Still wrong.

4 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

Conflict side bar page 75 of Knights of Fate:

Interesting, not an Optional Rule I would consider using.

Again, it puts "dark and light" in the hands of the Players, which doesn't lend to a healthy Morality mechanic IME, but YMMV.

18 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?

1) Sounds like a **** of a lot of conflict potentially, and it's situations like that should prove immensely rewarding, but difficult on the character given the emotional turmoil. Difficult to evaluate without being there but it sounded like he acted with a lot of anger. Ultimately, it depends how much the Sherrif and Deputy are complicit; given that they weren't a particularly innocent party, I probably wouldn't have been too harsh on the conflict there. Maybe it's 2-5 conflict to represent his anger.

The cool impromptu hanging? Between 10-15. The fact that he died in sheer terror and probably quite slowly is the kind of coffee the darkside wakes up to. I LOVE IT!

2) None: The character is freeing his people against people who have enslaved his entire race. Provided they don't murder the prisoners or don't do anything too unsavoury to take advantage of their privilege; nothing at all. The force doesn't care if you take life for a just cause and in this particular case; violence was probably one of the only options available to him given his enslaved status.

15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

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.

He might not have been emotionally ready to hear the full story when Obi-Wan first meets Luke, but that doesn't mean Obi-Wan has to lie. He could have just told him that he knew Luke's father, that the light-saber belonged to his father and that he would tell him the full story later. That way he's not lying to him and he's not setting him up on a quest for revenge on the man who he thinks killed his father. The way Obi-Wan sets it up is to make sure that Luke has more reasons to try to kill Vader and distrust him, it is emotionally manipulative and dishonest. The truth becomes a weapon because it was obfuscated. If Luke had known more of the truth before facing Vader the first time then he wouldn't have been as distraught, he would have felt less betrayed by the people he trusts and less likely to fall to the dark.

Just because Luke tells Yoda that he's ok with it as Yoda is dying doesn't mean Yoda and Kenobi did the right thing. Being more honest with Luke about the dangers of the dark side and his family ties to it and the Empire would have equipped him with a better ability to face Vader. Or to even realize that he really wasn't ready for Bespin so that he would have stayed on Dagobah and finish his training. But that wouldn't have been the same as training him to become their assassin against Vader and the Emperor, one filled with righteous anger at the monster who killed his father alongside with padawans and jedi. Because if we look at their actions that's what they're trying to set him up to be, someone taken away from his normal life, cut off from friends and family and indoctrinated in the dogmatic belief of the Jedi and then sent out to destroy the enemies of the Jedi.

There are a couple emergent themes that seem to be areas of debate in this thread. Note that there are not right or wrong answers to the following questions but rather they seem to represent different viewpoints. Also, how you answer #5 may influence how you think about #6 and vice versa. I’ve edited the Topic Introduction appropriately.

5) Is Conflict something that is internal to the character (feeling conflicted) or does it represent external pull that is derived from the “will of the force”? This may seem trivial, but it does influence how you think about awarding conflict and probably how you think about the Force more broadly.

6) If a player chooses the less of two evils, do they still earn Conflict? This is probably going to vary a lot by GM. The general idea is, if a character lies, cheats, steals or perhaps even commits acts of violence but they do so to avoid having to do something much worse, do they still earn conflict?

Lesser of two evils is still evil. Conflict will be appropriate for either evil, and the lesser likely earns less Conflict. Jedi generals faced this all the time during the Clone Wars; there are very seldom wartime decisions that don't lead to Conflict, so go with the best of the crappy choices available.

13 hours ago, emsquared said:

Still can't make your argument without adding words and concepts I see.

Still wrong.

Wrong answer. Everything I've mentioned is covered not only in the rule book, but also in the greater Star Wars lore, both Legends and Canon. Lying for the benefit of others, in order to protect them, in order to avoid unnecessary combat, to save someone from emotional distress that he or she is not ready to hear, etc., any selfless reason--for a righteous aim-- does not garner Conflict. Lies for personal gain--lies intended to hurt people, lies to swindle people, lies for selfish reasons-- those garner Conflict. The same with Theft. If it is for the benefit of others, it does not garner Conflict. If it is for selfish gain, or done with malicious intent, it garners Conflict.

The thing you're failing to grasp, is that, by the Jedi Code, a Jedi is allowed to lie, cheat, commit fraud, if necesary, if it is for a righteous aim. While not everything in the Jedi Code deals with the balance of Light and Dark (there are also several tenets which are there simply for the sake of manners and living in polite society), it is specifically written to be in line with the Light side of the Force. As such, nothing that is in line with the Jedi Code will garner Conflict. Following the Jedi Code will guarantee avoiding Conflict. So, as long as your action is in keeping with the tenets of the Jedi Code, it will not garner Conflict.

5 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

He might not have been emotionally ready to hear the full story when Obi-Wan first meets Luke, but that doesn't mean Obi-Wan has to lie. He could have just told him that he knew Luke's father, that the light-saber belonged to his father and that he would tell him the full story later. That way he's not lying to him and he's not setting him up on a quest for revenge on the man who he thinks killed his father. The way Obi-Wan sets it up is to make sure that Luke has more reasons to try to kill Vader and distrust him, it is emotionally manipulative and dishonest. The truth becomes a weapon because it was obfuscated. If Luke had known more of the truth before facing Vader the first time then he wouldn't have been as distraught, he would have felt less betrayed by the people he trusts and less likely to fall to the dark.

Just because Luke tells Yoda that he's ok with it as Yoda is dying doesn't mean Yoda and Kenobi did the right thing. Being more honest with Luke about the dangers of the dark side and his family ties to it and the Empire would have equipped him with a better ability to face Vader. Or to even realize that he really wasn't ready for Bespin so that he would have stayed on Dagobah and finish his training. But that wouldn't have been the same as training him to become their assassin against Vader and the Emperor, one filled with righteous anger at the monster who killed his father alongside with padawans and jedi. Because if we look at their actions that's what they're trying to set him up to be, someone taken away from his normal life, cut off from friends and family and indoctrinated in the dogmatic belief of the Jedi and then sent out to destroy the enemies of the Jedi.

Yes. It does. Luke asked Obi Wan, point blank, "How did my father die?" Obi Wan had two potential choices. He could tell him the truth, that his father was still alive and was the Emperor's Sith killing machine, or he could tell him that his father was a hero who died at the hands of said Sith killing machine. Which would you tell a young, innocent boy, particularly one you are placing the hopes of the entire galaxy on? Telling Luke the truth would have devastated him. This is proven in ESB when he does finally learn the truth about Vader's identity from Vader himself. He's crushed. If he had been told that on Tatooine, it would have destroyed him emotionally. Obi Wan did what was in Luke's best interest. Therefore, there is no Conflict.

Secondly, as Obi Wan himself said in RotJ. As far as he was concerned, when Anakin became Darth Vader, the good man he used to be was dead. So, from his point of view, he was telling the "truth". Regardless, his "lie" was for Luke's own welfare. It was the right thing to do.