3 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

I think this discussion has been very productive, even if the Obi-one v Luke case study was a little (or very much) off the deep end. These discussions have helped me solidify my viewpoints a bit more. I’ll be using Conflict to represent the internal struggle for each character. For this to work, I’ll assume that:

· All sentients in SW have a basic, innate sense of right vs wrong that is consistent for all characters and

· That basic sense of right and wrong is consistent with the ‘will of the force’ or at least the basic forces of dark vs light

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons will still earn Conflict because the person will still feel conflicted for doing something they perceive is wrong, even if justified, but not as much Conflict as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Though I agree that this is highly situational.

I think this is consistent with the guidelines for Conflict as described in the CRB and it will help me with future encounters in my game. As I’ve noted earlier this will vary by table and GM, just summarizing my thoughts.

I think it's pretty easy to justify the "internal conflict" ruling, just look at the actual films themselves. Every example of someone struggling with the darkside, and it's influence on them, is that of an internal conflict. Heck Luke even uses that very word speaking to him (thus where the term came from). "I feel the struggle within you...the conflict." You can see it in Luke's face when he is standing over Vader, triumphant, and flush with the feeling of his emotions flooding him with power via the Dark. And when he's hiding from Vader, being taunted by him about the futility of his efforts. Being teased by Palpatine by showing the Rebel fleet being attacked. You can see it when he realizes he's doing exactly what the Emperor wants, multiple times in that scene, and continues to say No. You can see it in the prequels in Anakin's face, as he struggles with his internal feelings, about what he should or shouldn't do. How the weight of his choices, and the guilt/anger/shame of them, make him further unstable with each film. Until he's gone full circle, and redirected all of his internal guilt onto others, to justify to himself, what he's doing. When he's standing over Dooku's beaten body, being tempted by Palpatine to behead him. The list goes on and on, and that's just in the Star Wars films, never mind countless other forms of entertainment over thousands of years, that all bank on the same narrative trope.

None of those above examples boiled down to "Thou hast done a bad thing, and thus the Force shall punish you with Dark Side Frownie Points!" It's the internal conflict, and struggle, just like any real person who has done things that are morally questionable, and how they deal with it. Sometimes they are able to deal with it constructively, and come out of it stronger (translation: they still rolled well on Morality, and went up instead of down). And sometimes they don't (translation: they didn't roll well on Morality, and went down), and thus begins a spiral of negative actions, reflecting their unhealthy reactions to the choices they made.

A person can tell themselves all day that shooting that kid in the face was necessary (because he had a bomb, and was about to kill a lot of people), but that person is still going to see that kid in their nightmares for the rest of their lives, justified or not. How they deal with that fact, is the Conflict, not some mystical arbitration based on a third party book of published fan fiction religious mumbo jumbo, mooshed together from real world concepts of belief (all of which are questionable and dubious themselves).

3 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

A final sticking point with this is what happens if a character has committed to be a dark sider and has no care for right v wrong. Well then, you should probably visit the topic ‘So you’ve fallen to the dark side, now what?’

Then you have a long sitdown with the player, and figure out what they are wanting out of this. Generally, players don't make major choices like that without a reason. They are wanting to "play a bad guy", or they want to do a Redemption Arc, but to start that, they have to go bad in order to be redeemed. You also need to make sure everyone else at the table is on the same page about how to respond to this. Because someone who no longer cares for right and wrong, and begins to show behavior that illustrates this (casually kills innocent people, or lets them die. Puts the rest of the part at risk because their lives are no longer a concern for this person. Taking actions that are now morally reprehensible to the rest of the party, like taking/selling/buying slaves for personal use, etc), it's very likely that the rest of the party will turn on them. And while it's nice to think that gamers will keep all of that kind of conflict "in-game", the reality is that people have personalities, and they can cause real world friction, that can cause true conflict at the table. Perhaps someone at the table has a history of abuse, and seeing a friend of theirs, gleefully detailing the horrific things they are now doing to these NPCs, because "hey, I'm a Dark sider, I don't care about Right or Wrong", can upset them, maybe drive them from the table. I've seen this very thing happen on chat sites that do real time roleplaying. One player is playing a super dark and disturbing concept, and takes every opportunity to indulge said behavior, often in ways that are uncomfortable for the other players.

So there is a lot of things to consider, and they need to be addressed maturely at the table. If everyone at the table is fine with it, even acknowledging that "things might get dark and disturbing, and we might even come to blows, but we think that will be fun to play out", then great, go for it, and may the Fun be with you. But if not, then it's probably a good idea to address that kind of thing with the player of the Dark sider, and ask them to keep their morally unrestrained PC's behavior to a minimum, for the sake of the table harmony. Possibly banking on a redemption arc, that the rest of the players can take part in, to bring their murderhobo ally back to the side of "having some restraint and morality"

2 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I think it's pretty easy to justify the "internal conflict" ruling, just look at the actual films themselves. Every example of someone struggling with the darkside, and it's influence on them, is that of an internal conflict. Heck Luke even uses that very word speaking to him (thus where the term came from). "I feel the struggle within you...the conflict." You can see it in Luke's face when he is standing over Vader, triumphant, and flush with the feeling of his emotions flooding him with power via the Dark. And when he's hiding from Vader, being taunted by him about the futility of his efforts. Being teased by Palpatine by showing the Rebel fleet being attacked. You can see it when he realizes he's doing exactly what the Emperor wants, multiple times in that scene, and continues to say No. You can see it in the prequels in Anakin's face, as he struggles with his internal feelings, about what he should or shouldn't do. How the weight of his choices, and the guilt/anger/shame of them, make him further unstable with each film. Until he's gone full circle, and redirected all of his internal guilt onto others, to justify to himself, what he's doing. When he's standing over Dooku's beaten body, being tempted by Palpatine to behead him. The list goes on and on, and that's just in the Star Wars films, never mind countless other forms of entertainment over thousands of years, that all bank on the same narrative trope.

None of those above examples boiled down to "Thou hast done a bad thing, and thus the Force shall punish you with Dark Side Frownie Points!" It's the internal conflict, and struggle, just like any real person who has done things that are morally questionable, and how they deal with it. Sometimes they are able to deal with it constructively, and come out of it stronger (translation: they still rolled well on Morality, and went up instead of down). And sometimes they don't (translation: they didn't roll well on Morality, and went down), and thus begins a spiral of negative actions, reflecting their unhealthy reactions to the choices they made.

A person can tell themselves all day that shooting that kid in the face was necessary (because he had a bomb, and was about to kill a lot of people), but that person is still going to see that kid in their nightmares for the rest of their lives, justified or not. How they deal with that fact, is the Conflict, not some mystical arbitration based on a third party book of published fan fiction religious mumbo jumbo, mooshed together from real world concepts of belief (all of which are questionable and dubious themselves).

There's a difference between "internal conflict" and Conflict. By RAW Conflict is gained only if you do something wrong or "evil", regardless of how you or your character feels about it. So, if an action is one that, by RAW, doesn't garner Conflict, such as killing in self defense or defense of another, then regardless of how a player might role-play his character's reaction to the event having a personal effect on him, it doesn't mean that he gets Conflict for it. In fact, if a Jedi takes a life in self defense or defense of another, he should reflect on it, even though he doesn't get Conflict for it. A Jedi who stops considering those ramifications, is one who has gone to the Dark Side. So Conflict itself is not a measure of a person's internal remorse or guilt. It's an objective measure of how evil of an action something is.

Here's the response I got from Sam Stewart. It really didn't answer the core of the issue, specifically what the Developers intended, and what the RAW says, so I asked a follow up to get more clarification:

Quote

Rules Question:
I'm having a rather heated debate in the forums over the Lying for Personal Gain rule on the tabel of page 324 of the F&D core rulebook. The table says as follows: 1 Conflict: Lying for Personal Gain: The PC tells a lie for seflish reasons or to benefit himself. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others, such as avoiding a combat situation or protecting innocents. The stickler of the debate is that second section regarding lies which don't garner Conflict. That being lying for the benefit of others. There are some people on the board claiming that even if you lie for the benefit of others, that you should still garner Conflict except in the most extreme circumstances. My reading of the rule is that if the lie is to benefit others, no matter the situation, it garners no Conflict. IT;'s either for personal gain, and thus gets one Conflict, or it's for the benefit of others, and thus no Conflict. Who is correct here?

Hello Michael,

Whether or not your character’s actions garner conflict depends on the specifics of the action, and just as importantly, on your GM’s judgement. In the end, some groups will see any lies, no matter how noble, as anathema to the Force, and will award conflict for them. Other groups will be fine allowing lies that are done specifically to help other people, and won’t award conflict.

The important takeaway is that neither option is wrong, as long as the GM explains that a PC will receive conflict for a certain action before they do it (giving the player the chance to choose not to accept conflict and do something else), and the GM is consistent in what actions result in conflict.

Hope this helps!

Sam Gregor-Stewart

RPG Department Manager

Fantasy Flight Games

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It says that Lies which are for Personal Gain garner Conflict and lies that are for the benefit of others garner no Conflict.

Your brain skipped the word Some, I think.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's an objective measure of how evil of an action something is.

I think you might've failed philosophy forever. ?‍♂️

Also, if there is such a thing as "objective evil", it's not conflict. Or would you consider getting scared or using your fear to channel the force to save a child from a burning building objectively evil? Both can give you conflict.

19 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Here's the response I got from Sam Stewart. It really didn't answer the core of the issue, specifically what the Developers intended, and what the RAW says, so I asked a follow up to get more clarification:

As I mentioned before, the word some.

Quote

Whether or not your character’s actions garner conflict depends on the specifics of the action, and just as importantly, on your GM’s judgement.

Meaning, sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, depending on the specifics on the situation. It's impossible to list every possible situation, or even anything more than the roughest of outlines. In the end you need to trust your judgement and common sense, although in your specific case, you'd might consider using someone else's.

The table says that some lies don't garner Conflict, and that those lies are ones which are for the benefit of others. It doesn't say that some lies which benefit others don't garner Conflict. It says some lies don't garner Conflict, those lies being the ones done for the benefit of others.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The important takeaway is that neither option is wrong, as long as the GM explains that a PC will receive conflict for a certain action before they do it (giving the player the chance to choose not to accept conflict and do something else), and the GM is consistent in what actions result in conflict.

This absolutely settles the debate. Neither option is wrong ?

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The table says that some lies don't garner Conflict, and that those lies are ones which are for the benefit of others. It doesn't say that some lies which benefit others don't garner Conflict. It says some lies don't garner Conflict, those lies being the ones done for the benefit of others.

Close, but not quite.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others.

This is not the same as "All lies told to benefit others are without penalty". Meaning, there are no hard and fast rules, but at a minimum the lies should be to the benefit of others.

2 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

This absolutely settles the debate. Neither option is wrong ?

Wait, did you just deal in absolutes? That means... ?

4 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Close, but not quite.

This is not the same as "All lies told to benefit others are without penalty". Meaning, there are no hard and fast rules, but at a minimum the lies should be to the benefit of others.

Wait, did you just deal in absolutes? That means... ?

Yes, it is. That is exactly what it means. There is only one penalty for lying, and that is one Conflict garnered for lying for Personal Gain. So,The rule says that some lies garner no Conflict, those being ones which are for the benefit of others. The rule is clarifying which lies garner Conflict and which ones do not. Lies for Personal gain garner Conflict, lies for the sake of others do not. It is that simple.

Sam's response seems to reinforce what I posted earlier. RAW cannot cover every single situation without requiring a library full of books (see all the volumes of law books in a law office). Very little is black and white when it comes to morality rules in the game so the GM and players will have to discuss it when those gray areas pop up. As long as it is a consistent decision, I see no problem with it and that seems to be what Sam reinforces.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is. That is exactly what it means. There is only one penalty for lying, and that is one Conflict garnered for lying for Personal Gain. So,The rule says that some lies garner no Conflict, those being ones which are for the benefit of others. The rule is clarifying which lies garner Conflict and which ones do not. Lies for Personal gain garner Conflict, lies for the sake of others do not. It is that simple.

No Tramp.

One Conflict for lying for personal gain, at a "less than overtly-evil or overly-selfish" level.

Above that there's +1-5 more Conflict warranted.

So what is "less than overtly-evil or overly-selfish", is what is up to GM interpretation. By RAW.

Is it "subtly or low-key evil" to lie to benefit some people, even though that lie harms other, uninvolved people?

I think most rational people would say, "Yes, absolutely. That is a little evil, or a little selfish."

Not Tramp. And that's fine. That's your interpretation. But that IS NOT RAW.

This is what Sam told us all in his response.

4 minutes ago, emsquared said:

No Tramp.

One Conflict for lying for personal gain, at a "less than overtly-evil or overly-selfish" level.

Above that there's +1-5 more Conflict warranted.

So what is "less than overtly-evil or overly-selfish", is what is up to GM interpretation. By RAW.

Is it "subtly or low-key evil" to lie to benefit some people, even though that lie harms other, uninvolved people?

I think most rational people would say, "Yes, absolutely. That is a little evil, or a little selfish."

Not Tramp. And that's fine. That's your interpretation. But that IS NOT RAW.

This is what Sam told us all in his response.

It is also not "fine" to penalize someone doing something for the betterment of others. That is where we dispute. The key point of the rule in the table is that the lie is for personal gain. That is what the rule says. "The PC lies for selfish reasons or to benefit himself." That is the specific type of lie that warrants one Conflict. The rest of the passage refers to lies that don't warrant Conflict. Yes, if the lie is particularly malicious, then more Conflict is warranted. That's not in dispute. The problem is your assertion that even lies which are told for the benefit of others (which includes simply to avoid combat, to protect others, to allow another to save face, to save someone from knowledge that would be emotionally devastating, etc.) are as bad as those which are told for personal gain. That is where we are in dispute. The rule in the book says that lies for personal gain warrant one Conflict, and those that are for the benefit of others warrant no Conflict. How does a lie told to help others equate to a lie told for selfish gain?

For the record, if I was gm'ing 'A New Hope' I'd probably have given Obi-Wan a point of conflict for lying about Anakin's death.

53 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It is also not "fine" to penalize someone doing something for the betterment of others. That is where we dispute. The key point of the rule in the table is that the lie is for personal gain.

If you look at the big picture than it actually can turn out to be for personal gain or for personal group gain. If you watch the whole Clone Wars series, there are a lot of situations done "for the betterment of others" that severely impacted some other "others"

In several instances, Jedi did things that proved good for the Jedi order but was not the best thing for the Republic or even for the person they forced to do the task. This included lying to the Senate and Palpatine - which of course turned out to be a good thing but they did not know that truth when they were making the lie.

3 minutes ago, Varlie said:

If you look at the big picture than it actually can turn out to be for personal gain or for personal group gain. If you watch the whole Clone Wars series, there are a lot of situations done "for the betterment of others" that severely impacted some other "others"

In several instances, Jedi did things that proved good for the Jedi order but was not the best thing for the Republic or even for the person they forced to do the task. This included lying to the Senate and Palpatine - which of course turned out to be a good thing but they did not know that truth when they were making the lie.

Wrong. That's not the issue. The key point of the rule is intent. What is the underlying reason for the "lie". Is the reason for gain some personal advantage or benefit for yourself, or are you doing it to protect someone else? That is what is important. Yes, sometimes some other unexpected result happens down the line, but that is not what causes Conflict gain. What causes the Conflict, or lack thereof, in these instances is what was the intent of the individual at the time of the action. So, it isn't a "big picture" issue. It is a small picture issue. As Qui Gon says to Obi Wan when Obi Wan told him that Yoda said to be mindful of the future, "But not at the expense of the moment. Focus on the here and now." Do what good you can do now. Help who you can now. Protect who you can now. Attempt to diffuse the immediate situation to avoid unnecessary combat now. If that means telling a "white lie" then do so. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. What is inherently wrong is when you lie for personal gain, for selfish reasons, for greed. Yes, a Jedi should be mindful of potential repercussions down the line, but not at the expense of the current situation.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The rule in the book says that ... "Some" of those that are for the benefit of others "may be told".

FTFY.

RAW doesn't even say they warrant no Conflict. That's you. This is ALL you adding qualifiers and words to RAW.

Your interpretation is your interpretation, but it is not the rule.

2 minutes ago, emsquared said:

FTFY.

RAW doesn't even say they warrant no Conflict. That's you. This is ALL you adding qualifiers and words to RAW.

Your interpretation is your interpretation, but it is not the rule.

That's not what the rule says. It says that some lies may be told with no penalties, those being ones which are for the benefit of others. It does not say that "some lies told for the benefit of others" may be told at no penalty." It says, "Some lies may be told at no penalty to benefit others." In other words, some lies may be told at no Conflict penalty, but they must be lies told for the benefit of others. That is what the rule is saying. The specific penalty in the table is one Conflict for telling a lie for personal gain, It is not for telling a lie in general. So, yes, the rule does say no Conflict penalty for telling a lie for the benefit of others. The Conflict Penalty of for telling a lie for personal gain. That is what the specific penalty is for. It is not for lying. It is for lying for selfish reasons. That is what the rule is.

I mean, it does also say some. If it said 'lies may be told at no penalty to benefit others' I could see your point, but the word some means that some lies told to benefit others can gain conflict. Eg. if you were to like to benefit a villain, that would probably get you conflict. Also you can lie to benefit another, while simultaneously benefiting from it. There's too many variables and grey areas for you to be making blanket statements really.

2 minutes ago, Rabobankrider said:

I mean, it does also say some. If it said 'lies may be told at no penalty to benefit others' I could see your point, but the word some means that some lies told to benefit others can gain conflict. Eg. if you were to like to benefit a villain, that would probably get you conflict. Also you can lie to benefit another, while simultaneously benefiting from it. There's too many variables and grey areas for you to be making blanket statements really.

Nope. The term "Some" is used to denote that certain lies may be told for the benefit of others. The "to benefit others" is the qualifier as to what type of lies those are.

You realise that going 'nope' and 'wrong' to peoples statements is really ******* rude and annoying, and makes you look like a massive **** right?

Also I still don't think you're reading the rules right but I'm not going to argue it. And judging by most previous comments etc it seems most people would disagree with your interpretation.

But there you go.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. The term "Some" is used to denote that certain lies may be told for the benefit of others. The "to benefit others" is the qualifier as to what type of lies those are.

Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Some lies may be told at no penalty to benefit others.

My bad, I am AFB and so was relying on an apparently unreliable web resource for the language atm.

Thanks for the quote.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

some lies may be told at no Conflict penalty, but they must be lies told for the benefit of others.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The specific penalty in the table is one Conflict for telling a lie for personal gain

No.

As is evidenced (and as you well know) by all other entries in the table, the bolded words (like, "Lying for Personal Gain") at the beginning of the entry are a category - a headline, not the entire guidance, not the rule.

As you yourself have pointed out previously, the guidance - the rule - follows, in the table and in the rest of that section. And the rules state the following explicitly:

1. Lying for a selfish reason (funny how you didn't mention the LEAD qualifier in the guidance, why is that?) OR to benefit himself warrants Conflict.

2. There are many degrees and gray (+1-5 Conflict-worth) areas of selfishness.

3. What action falls into any given degree of selfishness is up to the GM to interpret.

4. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others.

That's it. Thats RAW.

No where at all does it say or imply or indicate that ONLY because a lie benefits others, does it exempt that lie from Conflict.

Simply, as I've quoted you yourself above, IF a lie is to be exempted from Conflict it MUST be told to benefit others. That's it.

The End

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

My bad, I am AFB and so was relying on an apparently unreliable web resource for the language atm.

Thanks for the quote.

Agreed.

No.

As is evidenced (and as you well know) by all other entries in the table, the bolded words (like, "Lying for Personal Gain") at the beginning of the entry are a category - a headline, not the entire guidance, not the rule.

As you yourself have pointed out previously, the guidance - the rule - follows, in the table and in the rest of that section. And the rules state the following explicitly:

1. Lying for a selfish reason (funny how you didn't mention the LEAD qualifier in the guidance, why is that?) OR to benefit himself warrants Conflict.

2. There are many degrees and gray (+1-5 Conflict-worth) areas of selfishness.

3. What action falls into any given degree of selfishness is up to the GM to interpret.

4. Some lies can be told without penalty to benefit others.

That's it. Thats RAW.

No where at all does it say or imply or indicate that ONLY because a lie benefits others, does it exempt that lie from Conflict.

Simply, as I've quoted you yourself above, IF a lie is to be exempted from Conflict it MUST be told to benefit others. That's it.

The End

I did mention the lead qualifier. The very first sentence after the “category” says, “The PC lies for selfish reasons or to benefit himself.” That is what they define as “lying for personal gain.” That is what garners one Conflict. Note that it doesn’t say lies for “any” reason. It says, “The PC lies for selfish reasons or to benefit himself.” That is the rule. The rest of the passage covers lies that don’t earn the PC Conflict; those being lies told for the benefit of others. And, yes, that last half of the passage does indeed indicate that because the lie is for the benefit of others, that it is exempt from Conflict.

Did Obi get conflict for lying when he said

“These are not the droids you’re looking for”

Because every group will have their own boundaries I would use that one specifically because it’s absolutely connected to the Force, it’s cannon, it is an out and out lie, and is entirely for the benefits of others. Don’t argue with other groups over it, just discuss that situation with the people you play with.

And I’m not getting involved in finding “the right answer” since I don’t actually think there is (or should be) one.