Having Values conflict with another or Values conflicting with Directives is fun – espeically the latter.
But how do you deal with conflicting Directives? Should that be generally avoided? Or should one work out a hierarchy in between the Directives to decide which is ‘safe’ to challenge/disobey? Should any conflict of Directives be payed for with Threat? Rewarded with Determination?
My problem is this: A challenged Directive is a negative influence on reputation rolls. If directives conflict, I as a GM force the players to have a negative influence on reputation. It’s a dilemma they cannot escape. While choosing one bad of a dilemma over the other is a common trope in Trek, mechanically, I feel I take something from them, without giving something back.
I’d go with it - as you say, it’s a common trope within the established stories, and is prime fodder for roleplaying. If the players handle it well, then the overall success of the mission should negate any downside for not following directives to the letter.
Also, a lot of directives have some room for manoeuvre: the commanding officer (or the fleet commander) could use their influence to get some negatives excised from the record.
I think if you’re going to have conflicting directives, that conflict should be the crux of the adventure - focus the whole story on the choice of which directive to obey and which to disregard.
And then as compensation for the mechanical disadvantage to their reputation, have an Admiral (or whoever else would be relevant based on the story) take a special interest in them because of how they handled their dilemma, and in a future adventure that Admiral might select them to handle an especially sensitive mission outside of their normal duties.
As a follow-up: How would you treat challenging a directive but not getting caught? I.e. lying at the Department of Temporal Investigations in the Adventure Another Roll of the Dice without anyone noticing? Would this affect the reputation roll? Probably not, right?
