I’m sorry, I know Conflict/Morality discussions have been done almost to death, but I’m using it for the first time (usually my table sticks to Edge), and I’m a little confused. Just to set the tone, I’m looking to interpret RAW, not house rules. Another c larification: I’m of the opinion that the Force determines light/dark, not the character’s or the player’s sense of right/wrong.

My PCs are going through Mask of the Pirate Queen , and last session was the assault on the Vault. They broke in, tied up some sleeping sentries, interrogated them, then went through and blasted nearly everyone in the place.

Only 2 of the 6 are Force-sensitive, so only they have Morality. Those 2 never shot first, even though they were intentionally invading the pirate base to capture the Queen. Those 2 let the others coerce the tied-up guards and the one caught in the bathroom with his pants down. It seems like RAW, they shouldn’t gain Conflict, but they were going in ready for combat. Just because they technically didn’t shoot first doesn’t seem like they should get off scott-free.

On the other hand, one of them did coerce the pirate queen to come woth them after they dispatched her guards instead of shooting her. This seems like the better path, with a threat rather than a blaster bolt, but it seems RAW that gains Conflict where returning the queen’s blaster fire doesn’t.

So my question, is what counts as “defensive combat” rather than “aggression” for the purpose of Conflict? Does it matter whether you’re attacking a bounty’s pirates, or an Imperial base, or a Sith fortress, or a bunch of droids?

Also, how do you handle letting non-FS PC’s handle the “dirty work” of coercion? Oh, and they took pirate loot after they killed everyone. Does that count as stealing for Conflict?

Thanks!

There is no "Correct" answer. If the two believe they are going in to subdue and capture rather than kill everything we see, then they should not be getting conflict.

I am not familiar with the adventure so I don't know if there's a bounty or something on the Pirate Queen, it makes sense there may be with that title. The key is never give the force users conflict for something someone else initiates. So if their partners go in shooting and cause the npcs to shoot back and the force users are forced to use lethal force, they should not get conflict.

You are using some very broad terms, like "coerce" and "interrogate", and it's more about intent really. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with talking to a hostile person, whom you have taken captive, to try and get information. It's HOW you convince them to talk, that can lead to Conflict potentially. Standing by and letting their allies torture the captive however, would be something Conflict worthy. That would fall under the "letting someone take harm by your inaction" category. But just stepping aside, and letting the Social skill focused PC (The Face character) take the reigns, isn't inherently bad, that's their job. But as soon as the Face starts punching them and yelling "WHERE IS SHE?!?!" You bet that's when your Jedi Jim Gordon better do his best to break it up and stop it.

Also, combat itself isn't Conflict worthy by default. Again, it depends on intent and execution. The Jedi attacking a known criminal facility, to stop bad people from doing bad things, isn't fundamentally bad. That's heroic work, which is what they are supposed to do. "Guardians of Peace and Justice in the Republic" and all that.

If they attack it, and after the pirates throw up the white flag, and surrender, and they keep attacking, then yeah that's Conflict worthy. Or if they utilize a method that is especially cruel, like venting the entire facility to space or similar, that's pretty bad.

As to taking stuff, no it's not stealing to take the things that the now dead pirates no longer need.

Conflict isn't supposed to be a "Good Deed/Bad Deed" checklist, and you judge the PC and punish them with Conflict as a result of them being bad boys. This mindset is what makes the Conflict system so despised by a section of the community, and instantly turns it into a confrontational system that pits the GM versus the players, in some morality argument. And that's not what it's supposed to represent.

It's supposed to reflect the PC doing things that would make them feel CONFLICTED about whether it's a good thing or not. The kind of actions that they will think back on years later, with regret, possibly developing bad habits (addiction for example) to try and cope with. It's supposed to be a measure, not a punishment system, of whether or not the PC is the kind of PC who will take extreme actions to accomplish things, and how that will impact their personality/morality.

As a quick method to determine if something is worthy of Conflict, ask yourself 2 things:
1. Is the PC the kind of person who cares whether or not their mother saw them do this activity? (Which for a Light aligned PC, is considered to be something of a given. Or a mother equivalent. Basically would they feel bad if someone they care about, saw them do this activity)

2. Would their mother disapprove the activity being done?

If you answer yes to both of those, it's probably something at least on the spectrum of Conflict worthy. Maybe only 1-2 points, if it's something minor, or a major amount for something really nasty.

If their Morality is above officially "Going Dark", even in the dark zone below 50, but not yet officially over the line, they have at least SOME measure of a feeling of guilt/regret for some actions. Revenge of the Sith Anakin, clearly felt Conflicted about the order to kill Dooku, despite having clearly been pushed down into the <50 range of Morality. He wasn't completely without remorse by that point, because he wasn't fully gone yet. Thus, that execution he did, would still warrant Conflict for him. Now, he was less Conflicted about it, than he was in Attack of the Clones, after murdering the village of sand people. He didn't burst into tears at Dooku's death for example.

But once he "Went Dark", and knowingly killed Mace Windu for his own personal goals, he wasn't phased by murdering a room full of children at that point. They were just obstacles in his way. It wouldn't be worth Conflict anymore, or at least not worthy tracking, because at that point, you are perma-Dark 0 Morality at my table, until you do some epic Heroic Sacrifice to redeem yourself.

Try and use the Conflict system, as a guideline, for how the player should roleplay the personality of the PC. If they are gaining Conflict, but succeeding at the roll to avoid losing Morality, it doesn't mean they don't care about what they did. It means they DO care, but that they are able to find the silver lining in the event, whatever it was. Or rededicating themselves to do better in the future. To not let their weakness, or failure, or whatever, be in vain. That they will learn from it, and grow stronger to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If they fail the roll, and lose Morality, they can still be upset about it (or not), but they instead rationalize, and justify their actions to themselves as being totally ok. To convince the little voice in their head that is saying "what you did was wrong, and you know it", to shut up. Maybe they do this by drinking, or maybe they start being prone to violent, emotional outbursts, or becoming paranoid that everyone is against them, etc.

5 hours ago, cvtheoman said:

I’m of the opinion that the Force determines light/dark, not the character’s or the player’s sense of right/wrong.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that most of the people who will respond to you, don't agree with you on the above point. Heck, chances are they probably don't even like, or use the Morality mechanics in their own games, in any fashion but narratively (seems most ppl don't).

I do.

Ialso look to implement Morality system as close to RAW as I'm able.

So let's dive on shall we?!

First things first:

5 hours ago, cvtheoman said:

Those 2 never shot first, even though they were intentionally invading the pirate base to capture the Queen.

What makes it hard, being a Force User in a mixed group is this Conflict entry: "Knowing Inaction"

By RAW, if their allies are shooting first - before being threatened, or shot at themselves - then every person they kill is a murder. No big deal, if you don't have Morality, but if you do, you take 1 Conflict for every time someone commits an act that is worth 5 or more Conflict IF you don't try to stop them from doing it.

Did your Force Users try to stop you're murder hobos from doing their thing? If not, they - by RAW - should take 1 Conflict for every murder that took place.

So long as their allies weren't using Torture to Coerce people, then they probably are ok there, not trying to stop them.

5 hours ago, cvtheoman said:

one of them did coerce the pirate queen to come woth them after they dispatched her guards instead of shooting her

Any use of the Coercion skill by a Force User should cause Conflict in that Force User. Fear is the tool of the Darkside. You use fear (coercion), you're acting as an implement of the Darkside, that's Conflict. Period.

5 hours ago, cvtheoman said:

what counts as “defensive combat” rather than “aggression” for the purpose of Conflict?

This can get real grey, real fast. Let's start with the standard that a modern day LEO must abide by:

Does your target have a weapon, and they don't immediately relinquish it, or draw it on you? You're justified to shoot them. Right? Where this gets grey is, what right so you have to be there? What right/justification did the PCs have to be in the Queen's Vault (sorry, not familiar with the adventure)? If they are not there, in the defense if themselves, or others, than the Queen's guard have the right to protect their property. And thereby, suddenly every kill there is a murder. Because it's the PCs who are the aggressors by virtue of trespassing.

Make sense?

You take an actual analytical look at what is standard operating procedure for most "adventurers" in RPGs, and they really are just a bunch of murderers. Because rarely do the adventurers have any legitimate standing to be where they are, they're usually vigilantes, at best. Vigilantes are still criminals.

It'stough being a Force User in a group with non-Force Users, because most players don't think twice about how they're really just portraying psychopaths. I love love love the Morality mechanic, because if employed by RAW it really brings this out, and simultaneously brings out how hard it can be to actually behave "like a Jedi".

And don't get me wrong, Jedi do Conflict worthy things all the time, but when we're watching a movie or show or reading a book, we don't see that little meter hovering over there head counting up their "sins", and so it can be hard for players to accept the restrictions the Morality mechanic can put in their behavior.

But it can be implemented, by RAW, successfully, and it can even enrich the game while doing it.

Good luck.

Let me know if you have any other Morality questions, I've been implementing the mechanic successfully in games for years now, and feel like I have a pretty good grasp/method of it.

Yeah, part of me says that if a PC kills an NPC, even if its in self defense, even if its absolutely necessary, the action can still create conflict within them. What changes based on circumstance is how much conflict you might give them. I mean, if something bad happens TO the Jedi, independent of their own actions (like say Qui Gon getting killed in front of Obi-Wan), I'd give a Jedi conflict over that in my game. They are in an emotionally fragile state. I'd also then advise my PC to play their character as being in that emotionally fragile state, and maybe lean toward their character's emotional weakness more.

Remember that on average, you can generate 5 conflict per session and still maintain your morality. If you have a mentor (see disciples of harmony) you might have some extra tools for mitigating conflict.

The cool thing about Conflict vs light side/dark side point systems we've seen before is that this system is actually tempting. There's a very good chance you can spend the dark pips or do the bad thing and get away with it consequence free so long as you don't go overboard. And even if you do, if you're just extra good next session itll probably balance out. As the GM, its your job to tempt TF out of PCs this way.

Having a mix of players with morality and with out morality can quickly bring the force users to the dark side. I only had one game that was mixed and force users were the minority, so I just gave the guy obligation instead. Using the conflict chart just hanging around with these guys would have brought him to the dark side alone. Unless he continually fought with the fought to stop them which is no fun for any one.

So for a mixed group I would have them use Duty or obligation, instead of morality. Since it will help avoid player conflict in the group and prevent the loss of fun by either side. UNLESS you feel confident your group is of mature role players who want to use it, warn them of the potential impact it will have and let the group decide. If you do not use morality for them ask the players do they want to be light or dark side for their character concept and what power points they will use.

Hope it helps!