A rule of thumb I had in the old west end game star wars was whenever they used the force to inflict pain they gained a dark side point.... now move forward years to this system... can this rule still apply? for example if someone uses move to throw someone do they gain morality? and if so... what about the talent tree in Ultimate power ( I think... I don`t have the book with me I left if at my sons house ) the talent allows a character to summon a weapon using the force and can inflict pain with it...it doesn`t state they gain morality using the weapon... whereas some talent trees do state like heal/harm....

I don't think it matters if they use the Force or not to inflict pain, at GM's discretion they could still gain Conflict. Some powers specifically call it out, but you can still apply your own moral judgement.

3 hours ago, Vipersfang00000 said:

A rule of thumb I had in the old west end game star wars was whenever they used the force to inflict pain they gained a dark side point.... now move forward years to this system... can this rule still apply? for example if someone uses move to throw someone do they gain morality? and if so... what about the talent tree in Ultimate power ( I think... I don`t have the book with me I left if at my sons house ) the talent allows a character to summon a weapon using the force and can inflict pain with it...it doesn`t state they gain morality using the weapon... whereas some talent trees do state like heal/harm....

I'd say that in this system, it's more circumstantial. Though I think in your post you've confused Conflict (what gets assigned when a PC does a bad thing) with Morality (the overall system of which Conflict is a part).

In WEG, any use of the Force that caused pain or inflicted damage by RAW incurred a dark side point, no matter what the circumstance or situation or rationale; as far as D6 was concerned, using the Force to cause harm meant you gained a dark side point, especially with those powers that flat-out said "using this power gets you dark side point" such as Inflict and Telekinetic Kill.

In FFG, the GM has a little more wiggle room, due perhaps in some part to the mythos around the Force having evolved in the years between WEG's d6 and FFG's game. Now, the circumstances behind why a PC used certain aspects of the Force aren't inherently "evil" and thus don't warrant automatic assignment of Conflict.

For instance, see Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan's usage of a Force push effect (aka the Move power) to take out groups of battle droids that are actively attacking them. In WEG, that's be automatic dark side points as they're using the Force to inflict damage, but in FFG there'd be no conflict assigned because the two Jedi are acting in self-defense. Luke using Bind (if you ascribe to the theory that he used a Force choke rather than using a mind trick) on the Gamorreans in RotJ would probably warrant a small amount of Conflict as he went straight to intimidation rather than trying a more peaceful method of getting past the guards.

FFG wrote their game with the intent of not completely straight-jacketing the GM with layers upon layers of rules, ensuring that there was always some room for interpretation. Some GMs play pretty loose with assigning Conflict, and give their players a fair amount of leeway on the matter, while some are more restrictive; in my experience it's generally the younger GMs who grew up with the prequels as "their Star Wars films" that are a bit looser while the older GMs who grew up with the originals as "their Star Wars films" lean towards being more restrictive about whether using the Force offensively is good are bad, hewing pretty close to a literal interpretation of Yoda's line in ESB of "Jedi only uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never to attack" (which is by and large what WEG did given how little Star Wars lore regarding the Force existed when they wrote the first edition of their game).

Three things to consider:

The target of the force "attack:"
For example: If the targets are just battle droids, I would not suggest giving any conflict (as it has been said many times that Jedi didn't have to "hold back" as much when fighting inorganics [i.e. "soulless targets"]).

The type of attack:
For example: Force lightning would cause more conflict than a force push because of the nature of the power.

The reason for the attack:
For example: Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon force pushing the battle droids in self defense.

In the example of Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon (2) force pushing (1) battle droids (3) in self defense in my opinion would garner no conflict.

In the example of Anakin using the force on Poggle the Lesser (aside from the fact that it would trigger the "torture" conflict, I'm just using the situation and attack as an example) he is (2) using force choke, a dark side power (dark side version of Bind), (1) attacking an organic, and (3) while he is trying to save people, he is attacking a defenseless person out of anger and selfishness. Because of this (again, aside from torture) it should garner multiple conflict points.

Something to be VERY careful of is not double dipping on conflict and not making it accumulate too quickly. Some things you might just let slide so that they don't fall to the dark side after one mission because they force pushed a phalanx of battle droids off the cliff.

What I've done also is if my players become too dependant on their force powers, ie using influence on everyone they meet even if it's for a "good cause", I will give conflict. I see overuse of force powers as taking the easy way and a form of arrogance.