In my group I think I would state that using the content from F&D would result in Morality coming over for that character. I would tend to focus the mechanic more on force using characters and have it be optional for non-force using characters. My regular group doesn't meet for a couple more weeks so not had a chance to discuss this with them yet.

Overall though I do like the system and think the team have handled it really well.

Hmm, so if a PC doesn't earn any Confict in a game session, do they still roll a d10 and can then increase their Morality? If so, it's more an increase because they didn't do something bad, not because of any positive or altruistic actions. I'd like to see a chart similar to the Common Conflict Penalties, but that lists what actions might result in a reduction of your Conflict score in a given session. I feel like Conflict should be a sliding scale, not an absolute oriented toward the negative.

And the d10 thing still doesn't make sense. A PC could do douchey actions in a session, roll over that with the d10 and still earn a positive benefit. Sorta: "He just stole those credits and lied to that judge!" (earns 4 Conflict, rolls an 8 on the d10 and picks up +4 Morality) "Awww, what a nice guy."

I'm all for reducing the player's ability to game the system, but I'd like the system to make some sort of sense.

Also, the d10 roll at the end of a session bugs me. One could gain, say, 6 Conflict in a session by doing evil or naughty acts, roll a 10 on the d10, and see their Morality improve rather than decrease. That makes zero sense to me.

It'll be pretty easy to keep my players on the "Jedi" path if that's where they want to go. Or just roll with it if they turn all "dark and edgy" or something. No need for punishment mechanics.

From a game theory perspective, the d10 makes perfect sense.

If it were a static threshold, people would just game the system. With the random roll, you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?" Because even a few points might drop your Morality.

Oh no! My character did something not quite nice once! Man, that -4 this time is really gonna drag down my +4.5/session average...

Hmm, so if a PC doesn't earn any Confict in a game session, do they still roll a d10 and can then increase their Morality? If so, it's more an increase because they didn't do something bad, not because of any positive or altruistic actions.

You seem to be analysing this mechanic in a vacuum. It's a fair guess that the published adventures for F&D will assume heroics, like crushing the tyranny of evil men, rather than morally neutral acts like shopping at the mall. If the PC's do spend most of the session picking out jedi haute couture , the GM may be justified in not rolling that d10.

Hmm, so if a PC doesn't earn any Confict in a game session, do they still roll a d10 and can then increase their Morality? If so, it's more an increase because they didn't do something bad, not because of any positive or altruistic actions.

You seem to be analysing this mechanic in a vacuum. It's a fair guess that the published adventures for F&D will assume heroics, like crushing the tyranny of evil men, rather than morally neutral acts like shopping at the mall. If the PC's do spend most of the session picking out jedi haute couture , the GM may be justified in not rolling that d10.

Well, not really a vacuum when I have the beta rules right here! Yes it's only beta and it's not really chock-full of examples, so it's not perfect, but it's currently all we have to work with. The published adventures can assume all they want, but I think we all know assumptions go out the window the instant a group of PCs show up.

That being said, if the adventures do assume heroics on the part of the characters, I feel the Morality mechanic should provide the means to reward heroic actions in addition to penalize non-heroic actions as currently indicated in the beta. Otherwise it's not really a measure of morality, and the terms Morality and Conflict probably would need to be renamed.

I think it's a great idea for a mechanic; I just think it needs a little tweaking.

The published adventures can assume all they want, but I think we all know assumptions go out the window the instant a group of PCs show up.

In that case, they shouldn't have aaany trouble earning conflict points.

Srsly, it's hard for me to predict how it's going to play out without...um, playing it out. My gut right now says I'll face something similar to your concern: goody two-shoes players will continue in their angelic ways and thus just skyrocket to paragon status making the whole point of tracking Morality to be dirt in the game -- unless someone deliberately uses the Dark side.

Mileage is gonna vary all over the map on this one, I can feel it...

In that case, they shouldn't have aaany trouble earning conflict points.

Srsly, it's hard for me to predict how it's going to play out without...um, playing it out. My gut right now says I'll face something similar to your concern: goody two-shoes players will continue in their angelic ways and thus just skyrocket to paragon status making the whole point of tracking Morality to be dirt in the game -- unless someone deliberately uses the Dark side.

Mileage is gonna vary all over the map on this one, I can feel it...

Except: The Murder Hobos will whine and cry and have tantrums.

Guys, this is excellent feedback. Make sure that when the Force & Destiny beta forums go up, you post it there. You have made some great points here and the designers need to hear them.

Remember, it's a beta and if the feedback mandates it, FFG will make changes.

This is good stuff you guys are coming up with. I too look forward to players being conflicted in some way ... Not sure I like the dice roll included in there, but I see it's probably necessary as written so far. I think I'd prefer their conflict to come from the force [dice] they roll/use, maybe making those dark side points extremely tempting, such as making them increase the strength of a force power or allow the user some kind of added benefit at the expense of their nobility.

Of course, choices and actions they make should add (or subtract) to that conflict, but that would probably be at the discretion of the GM.

my problem with this mechanic is that it miss the under lining problem with the light-side and dark-side that there both wrong and the force is meant to be neutral.

The Jedi and Sith were both kick off Tython for upsetting the balance.

they are both to far left or right of what should be by both the EU and the Chosen one arc of the clone wars.

so why don't neutral Jedi's get any thing for there troubles.

The Je'daii Order was an ancient organization unified by its belief and observance of the Force on the planet Tython, in the galaxy's Deep Core. Focusing on maintaining a balance in the Force, a state at which Tython was itself hospitable, the Je'daii saw the Force as two aspects of a whole; the Ashla and the Bogan. They saw this duality in the Force represented in the night sky of Tython in the form of two natural satellites; one bathed in light, another shrouded in darkness. In keeping with their ideal balance, Je'daii who fell too far to either the light or darkness were exiled to one of the moons to meditate until they returned to balance.

my problem with this mechanic is that it miss the under lining problem with the light-side and dark-side that there both wrong and the force is meant to be neutral.

The Jedi and Sith were both kick off Tython for upsetting the balance.

they are both to far left or right of what should be by both the EU and the Chosen one arc of the clone wars.

so why don't neutral Jedi's get any thing for there troubles.

The Je'daii Order was an ancient organization unified by its belief and observance of the Force on the planet Tython, in the galaxy's Deep Core. Focusing on maintaining a balance in the Force, a state at which Tython was itself hospitable, the Je'daii saw the Force as two aspects of a whole; the Ashla and the Bogan. They saw this duality in the Force represented in the night sky of Tython in the form of two natural satellites; one bathed in light, another shrouded in darkness. In keeping with their ideal balance, Je'daii who fell too far to either the light or darkness were exiled to one of the moons to meditate until they returned to balance.

^This is from the comics which have now been relegated to Legend status or not-canon. Since it is not canon the approach seems to be that of the films, which Lucas has stated many times: the Dark Side is a blight on the Force. Note there is never a mention of the Light side of the Force in the films only The Force.

The bit about the Chose One arc from TCW IS canon however. But could still be explained as the incorrect view of the Force. My guess is we might get a bit more clarification with the new trilogy. Until then I like to believe Lucas's version which fits with how the mechanic plays.

While the Morality mechanic might work in EotE, I don't think the penalties are appropriate. Losing Strain is a big deal and isn't really fair in a game where one of the core character concepts is Assassin.

It seems that Morality is designed to simulate character that fall to the dark side unwillingly, not characters that are evil or amoral. They'll just hit 0 and stay there. Having them lose Strain because of their "spiritual turmoil and inability to find inner peace", doesn't work with a character that is supposed to be a cold-blooded killer.

I've only had success stopping murder-hoboing by focusing on the hobo part. Giving the player some place or someone to care about will cause the players to consider the effects of their actions more than a game mechanic penalty.

my problem with this mechanic is that it miss the under lining problem with the light-side and dark-side that there both wrong and the force is meant to be neutral.

The Jedi and Sith were both kick off Tython for upsetting the balance.

they are both to far left or right of what should be by both the EU and the Chosen one arc of the clone wars.

so why don't neutral Jedi's get any thing for there troubles.

The Je'daii Order was an ancient organization unified by its belief and observance of the Force on the planet Tython, in the galaxy's Deep Core. Focusing on maintaining a balance in the Force, a state at which Tython was itself hospitable, the Je'daii saw the Force as two aspects of a whole; the Ashla and the Bogan. They saw this duality in the Force represented in the night sky of Tython in the form of two natural satellites; one bathed in light, another shrouded in darkness. In keeping with their ideal balance, Je'daii who fell too far to either the light or darkness were exiled to one of the moons to meditate until they returned to balance.

^This is from the comics which have now been relegated to Legend status or not-canon. Since it is not canon the approach seems to be that of the films, which Lucas has stated many times: the Dark Side is a blight on the Force. Note there is never a mention of the Light side of the Force in the films only The Force.

The bit about the Chose One arc from TCW IS canon however. But could still be explained as the incorrect view of the Force. My guess is we might get a bit more clarification with the new trilogy. Until then I like to believe Lucas's version which fits with how the mechanic plays.

yet in the Chose One ep. the planet acts just like Tython and the symbols on the floor look like 2 moons circling a planet.

Now i dont know if Lucas is making Tython or the Je'daii Cannon with this but the Je'daii philosophy seems to show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eEssepWEps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCDPhGAVD_M

I'm yet to get through the Morality system, however I like the concept. I believe though that it, like Duty and Obligation, should be optional for non-force sensitives. Morality however should be mandatory for Force sensitives.

My question though is what happens at the start of the campaign when a player wants Morality near paragon border to get a boost to their experience along with a further boost dud to taking more Duty. Or have I got that wrong?

My question though is what happens at the start of the campaign when a player wants Morality near paragon border to get a boost to their experience along with a further boost dud to taking more Duty. Or have I got that wrong?

If the Player wants more Obligation or lower Duty beyond the initial "EXP/Credit/Morality adjustment" then make it "awesome" RP thing/reward that occurs later.

Or do what I'm doing:

They can get the EXP boost from one source. Any other Obligation Increases or Duty Lowering only earn Credits. I'm not much concerned about Credits, money will flow into and out of their grasping paws at my whim, but EXPs are eternal.

I'm still waiting for my copy of the Beta, but I have a recently acquired force user in my EotE group, a Smuggler/Pilot. I will certainly be using the morality mechanic with him specifically, but not with the rest of the players who aren't force-sensitive. From what I've seen so far, each force user also has a Conflict with which they struggle. So it isn't just judging the morality of their actions in a general sense, but the actions they take in relation to what their Conflict actually is. The general guidelines are that, and the murder of innocents is going to generate high conflict for anyone, but on the more subtle lines, where the real battle between light and dark side will be in the subtle decision a specific character makes relative to what their Morality conflict actually is.

So far, I like what I see.