So I've been in this "discussion" with someone about whether using Move specifically with the control upgrade to do damage is automatic conflict or not. I say it isn't automatic conflict, because I'm thinking of an example situation where someone attacks you, and you defend yourself using what you can in order to deter or otherwise stop the attacker from harming you or others. The person arguing against is using Yoda's quote about never using the force for attack, so therefor using Move to cause damage is automatic conflict, no matter the purpose. I can think of many situations where using Move to deal damage would definitely cause conflict, but I can also think of many where it wouldn't make sense. This person also thinks that using the force to attack droids can never cause conflict because they aren't alive, which I also disagree with. I don't think so many situations are binary, whereas this other person does. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this. Thank you in advance.

It isn't automatic conflict. Conflict should be given based on context, with some exceptions where explicitly stated by the rules.

Yeah. I doubt Yoda accrued any conflict from using Move on Palps in Palps' offices at the start of their duel at the end of Ep III. Although, I'm sure someone will disagree.

Only if every attack is automatically conflict. If a character used the force power to grab someone and hold them over a chasm then this would be evil.

3 hours ago, MrTInce said:

Only if every attack is automatically conflict. If a character used the force power to grab someone and hold them over a chasm then this would be evil.

Even there, there might be gray areas. If you're dangling a mook batman-style, maybe not. If it's the quickest way of neutralizing an inquisitor (who happens to be a threat to innocent bystanders) without killing them, it might not give any conflict.

If a player uses a dark pip to activate it, yes, Move = Conflict. But that's the only "guaranteed" circumstance.

Beyond that, you have to look at the motive of the character (and, really, player), IF you want to have a functioning Morality mechanic.

But the Darkside =/= "Evil". That approach is too open to moral interpretation, and overlooking actually "Darkside things", when I don't think the Darkside is "just" evil. What has worked for me, is interpreting the Darkside, in a pretty black and white fashion, as (causing and having) fear, and (having and causing) anger/hate, and being motivated by selfishness, and seeking quick/easy power.

It's the latter two that get difficult, but are manageable.

So, is the use of Move done in a selfish way, or does it cause fear, is it a zealous grab at a quick path to power over a situation? Any situation that could be construed to fall under those categories (and certainly more) may warrant Conflict. IF you want to have a functioning Morality mechanic, where the PC doesn't just rocket to Paragon.

Morality replaces Obligation/Duty, right? So by virtue of that fact, we know it's meant to be a narrative/rp AND mechanical complication to the characters gameplay. That's what those mechanics do, they complicate a PC's existence, in the story and with dice. If you have too light of a touch with Morality, it doesn't do it's job. Too heavy and it can become punitive.

Take, stealing. Say, you're on a mission to rescue some innocent ppl, from basically a warzone. You come across a military skiff with a nice, big lazer turret on it. You have to assault a stronghold to rescue these innocents. "Let's steal the skiff!", they say. Is that Conflict? Morally, you're doing good, you're improving your chances to rescue the innocents. But IMO you get Conflict for stealing that skiff (and more if it gets damaged or destroyed later in the fight). Because even though your intent is noble, there's other ways to do that noble thing. You're seeking easy power, your motivation is really for yourself there, making your goal easier on yourself. You're being selfish.

That's what a functioning Morality mechanic looks like, IMO. It complicates the PC's life by making them choose between a little Conflict and an easier gameplay-path.

What about our scenario of, holding someone over a chasm? Why does that work to neutralize the Inquisitor? Because they're afraid you're gonna drop them and they'll plummet to their death. You're fundamentally using fear to control that situation. IMO, the Will of the Force would rather you stand toe-to-toe and try to kill that living soul than use fear to dictate their life. That scenario will always, I think, warrant Conflict, for me. I like to have a functioning Morality mechanic. Coercion Conflict is 2. Not a lot, but maybe not something to accept without a thought if you also use the Force a lot/regularly earn Conflict in other ways. You're making that Player choose between a little Conflict, or an easier-gameplay path. That's the Morality mechanic complicating the narrative and translating into impact through dice, that's what it's supposed to do.

That's how this Morality system works. It complicated the PCs life, it creates a choice between a little Conflict here and there and easier gameplay.

That's how I've gotten Morality to work for me.

Thanks for all of the great replies everyone. You've all pretty much hit on the points I was trying to cover when I was having this discussion with someone over on the swrpg subreddit. It's good to see that I'm not crazy for thinking that context matters when it comes to morality and conflict. I'm honestly astonished that someone was interpreting it in such a binary way. Thanks again everyone!