Okay, I said I'd be gone, but as Lorne and Kevynn asked, here's what we're going with for now:

Characters choose to start as Light (Order/Paragon) or Dark (Chaos/Renegade) side. Only applies to characters with a Force Career. (Emergents and Exiles are limited to two Force dice in our games so we decided it doesn't apply to them). Each character chooses an Emotional Strength and Weakness. Engaging with their Weakness flips them to Dark side if they are currently in Light. Engaging with their Strength turns them Light side if they are currently Dark. Light side rules are normal. Dark side follows identical mechanics to the book - lose 1 or 2 strain threshold, use DS pips, flip a Destiny at the start of each session, to represent the 'doesn't play well with others' aspect of the Dark side.

Characters can flip sides when narratively appropriate in the game, through engaging their Morality in play. No % for Morality is tracked, and no Conflict is ever used. Needlessly horrible things like burning down orphanages might still see the character 'corrupted' narratively, but in themselves, Light and Dark are not good or evil.

This offers a more 'Zen/Balance' approach than the movies, of course, and assumes characters will frequently engage with both of their sides, as Luke did in the final battle with Vader. It cuts out on book-keeping and the 'luck' element that evileeyore mentions above. Yes, eliminating Conflict probably makes the high-level powers more potent, but I'm okay with that. There are still consequences for actions without having to be a thug or a murder-hobo. Yes, you could 'game' this system, but you can 'game' the official rules too. And I trust my players to play in the right spirit anyway.

Don't get me wrong, the official rules seem fine if you're trying to emulate the feel of the movies. But this feels better for what we have in mind.

Interesting. Let us know how this works out in practice.

Okay, I said I'd be gone, but as Lorne and Kevynn asked, here's what we're going with for now:

Characters choose to start as Light (Order/Paragon) or Dark (Chaos/Renegade) side. Only applies to characters with a Force Career. (Emergents and Exiles are limited to two Force dice in our games so we decided it doesn't apply to them). Each character chooses an Emotional Strength and Weakness. Engaging with their Weakness flips them to Dark side if they are currently in Light. Engaging with their Strength turns them Light side if they are currently Dark. Light side rules are normal. Dark side follows identical mechanics to the book - lose 1 or 2 strain threshold, use DS pips, flip a Destiny at the start of each session, to represent the 'doesn't play well with others' aspect of the Dark side.

Characters can flip sides when narratively appropriate in the game, through engaging their Morality in play. No % for Morality is tracked, and no Conflict is ever used. Needlessly horrible things like burning down orphanages might still see the character 'corrupted' narratively, but in themselves, Light and Dark are not good or evil.

This offers a more 'Zen/Balance' approach than the movies, of course, and assumes characters will frequently engage with both of their sides, as Luke did in the final battle with Vader. It cuts out on book-keeping and the 'luck' element that evileeyore mentions above. Yes, eliminating Conflict probably makes the high-level powers more potent, but I'm okay with that. There are still consequences for actions without having to be a thug or a murder-hobo. Yes, you could 'game' this system, but you can 'game' the official rules too. And I trust my players to play in the right spirit anyway.

Don't get me wrong, the official rules seem fine if you're trying to emulate the feel of the movies. But this feels better for what we have in mind.

Am I correct, that in this interpretation there are no "middle-of-the-road" Force Users. You are either all bad already, or all good already? Every force sensitive character's player chooses whether they are Dark or Light, and you impose the +Strain Threshold or -Strain Threshold from the beginning? So, nobody gets to play a "neutral" force user?

I am interested as well to see how this turns out for you.

Okay, I said I'd be gone, but as Lorne and Kevynn asked, here's what we're going with for now:

Characters choose to start as Light (Order/Paragon) or Dark (Chaos/Renegade) side. Only applies to characters with a Force Career. (Emergents and Exiles are limited to two Force dice in our games so we decided it doesn't apply to them). Each character chooses an Emotional Strength and Weakness. Engaging with their Weakness flips them to Dark side if they are currently in Light. Engaging with their Strength turns them Light side if they are currently Dark. Light side rules are normal. Dark side follows identical mechanics to the book - lose 1 or 2 strain threshold, use DS pips, flip a Destiny at the start of each session, to represent the 'doesn't play well with others' aspect of the Dark side.

Characters can flip sides when narratively appropriate in the game, through engaging their Morality in play. No % for Morality is tracked, and no Conflict is ever used. Needlessly horrible things like burning down orphanages might still see the character 'corrupted' narratively, but in themselves, Light and Dark are not good or evil.

This offers a more 'Zen/Balance' approach than the movies, of course, and assumes characters will frequently engage with both of their sides, as Luke did in the final battle with Vader. It cuts out on book-keeping and the 'luck' element that evileeyore mentions above. Yes, eliminating Conflict probably makes the high-level powers more potent, but I'm okay with that. There are still consequences for actions without having to be a thug or a murder-hobo. Yes, you could 'game' this system, but you can 'game' the official rules too. And I trust my players to play in the right spirit anyway.

Don't get me wrong, the official rules seem fine if you're trying to emulate the feel of the movies. But this feels better for what we have in mind.

The problem is, ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50, they are more like 60/40, so there is no zen balance to the dice. The challenge of the game and the point to the 'M' system, skip morality, is that the players aspire to the 40% side of the die and correspondingly the harder path to walk. Simply saying it doesn't matter which side of the die the aspire to narratively is fine, but mechanically the DS has a 20% leg up.

I'm actually really intreguied by the discussion going on. As for people criticising my venomous comment to evileeyore. I stated why I said what I said and we moved back on to discussion in a more civilised manner.

The problem is ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50...

Which means a gain (on average) of 5-6 Morality per session the PC does not "partake of bad stuff" in anyway. If they can limit themselves to 4 Conflict or less, it's still a gain (on average) of 1-2.

* Not accounting for Conflict points. Which you have to discount. If the players know how th emechanic works it becomes mind-numbingly easy to game the game system. Just be a good guy most of the time, avoid using channeling the Dark Side, etc.

If you wish to account for Conflict points, it becomes a situation of "statistics beyond my math skills".

The problem is ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50...

Correct it's 5.5. Your "40/60" is actually wrong.*

Which means a gain (on average) of 5-6 Morality per session the PC does not "partake of bad stuff" in anyway. If they can limit themselves to 4 Conflict or less, it's still a gain (on average) of 1-2.

* Not accounting for Conflict points. Which you have to discount. If the players know how th emechanic works it becomes mind-numbingly easy to game the game system. Just be a good guy most of the time, avoid using channeling the Dark Side, etc.

If you wish to account for Conflict points, it becomes a situation of "statistics beyond my math skills".

Good gaming to you sir.

The problem is ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50...

Correct it's 5.5. Your "40/60" is actually wrong.*

Which means a gain (on average) of 5-6 Morality per session the PC does not "partake of bad stuff" in anyway. If they can limit themselves to 4 Conflict or less, it's still a gain (on average) of 1-2.

* Not accounting for Conflict points. Which you have to discount. If the players know how th emechanic works it becomes mind-numbingly easy to game the game system. Just be a good guy most of the time, avoid using channeling the Dark Side, etc.

If you wish to account for Conflict points, it becomes a situation of "statistics beyond my math skills".

We can break down the math and play out the likelihood. I think it behooves us to actually play it out and see just how it works out in game. I can wait to give morality a shot. I just need to find me a group running Force and Destiny first.

Mmmmmm statistics. Good thing this is a role-playing game and most people could care less about gaming the system. Sure there are the ones that will, but they do it with every system they play. I don't mind them since no one games the system better than a GM.

If someone wants to play good they can. If someone wants to play bad, they can. And if somone wants to ride down the middle, they can too. Not too sure why the latter would be a problem if that is what they choose to do.

The problem is ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50...

Correct it's 5.5. Your "40/60" is actually wrong

I am afraid you missed his point again. He was not wrong, as he was not talking about Conflict at all, nor the Morality system. In context, referring to the light/dark distribution on the dice, he is correct.

Back on topic, I agree with you that the Morality system as written might be too generous. I will need to test it in actual play before I can offer alternatives besides your suggestion of putting it more into the GM's hands. Having played a number of White Wolf games, that is an option I am comfortable with.

I do think, however, that you are missing one very important benefit of going to the Dark Side: freedom. In an ideal version of the Morality system, it is difficult for a Light Side paragon to remain such. She must fight off the temptation to take the quick and easy path, resist selfish and petty desires, and use her power (the Force, or otherwise) responsibly. But to embrace the Dark Side is to embrace freedom, power, and whatever whims one chooses. Essentially, a Light Side character has roleplaying restrictions placed on them by their Morality, while a Dark Side character does not.

The problem is ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50...

Correct it's 5.5. Your "40/60" is actually wrong

I am afraid you missed his point again. He was not wrong, as he was not talking about Conflict at all, nor the Morality system. In context, referring to the light/dark distribution on the dice, he is correct.

Back on topic, I agree with you that the Morality system as written might be too generous. I will need to test it in actual play before I can offer alternatives besides your suggestion of putting it more into the GM's hands. Having played a number of White Wolf games, that is an option I am comfortable with.

I do think, however, that you are missing one very important benefit of going to the Dark Side: freedom. In an ideal version of the Morality system, it is difficult for a Light Side paragon to remain such. She must fight off the temptation to take the quick and easy path, resist selfish and petty desires, and use her power (the Force, or otherwise) responsibly. But to embrace the Dark Side is to embrace freedom, power, and whatever whims one chooses. Essentially, a Light Side character has roleplaying restrictions placed on them by their Morality, while a Dark Side character does not.

And so say we all...

Back on topic, I agree with you that the Morality system as written might be too generous.

There's an easy fix for that -- roll something smaller than a d10 to resolve conflict. A d8 is less generous; a d6, downright austere.

Don't know much about the Morality system yet, but in regards to skill checks against other players, I had an issue with this a couple of weeks ago. The group had a mission to recover an ancient map and a Sith Holocron. (These will return in a future mission to find the tomb of Darth Zannah.) The "Captain" of the ship (who is a FU) wanted to keep the Holocron while the rest of the group wanted the credits for turning the item over to their patron. One of the players is playing a Diplomat and thought to attempt to invoke fear of the item through the use of his Coercion Skill (The way he described it and roleplayed it, I went along with his skill choice.) Well the Diplomat won the check, and I made cap turn over the Holocron. The next action was Cap attempting to use his 1 FD Influence to get it back and failed badly (I do seem to remember a Despair in the roll). The player immediately blew up and started complaining about players using skills on other players. I fixed the situation by doing 2 things. First I explained that I and most of the players view this game as a Storytelling system, not a Roleplaying system (explain that later) as they are REQUIRED to narrate any and all checks made (or the check never happened, this is to get them out of the d20 "I hit for 5 dmg" statements) and secondly, I told the player to go upstairs and change his diaper, then come back down and play as the adult that he is. When we play VtM, everything is narrated, skills and powers can be used against other players, as long as there is a good reason or story-driven motivation behind it and we as a group tell the story. In that system I prepare for a game by writing down a single sentence arc that I want the story to move along. From that point on everything is impromptu. For this I write checkpoints along the way (things that happen at some point in the adventure that I plan, everything in between is impromptu. Now in d20 games we call them roleplaying because of the limitations of the system, there's very little narration and storytelling and more rolling set stats. (If that's makes sense to you)

Am I missing something? It seems like the Morality system as designed allows you to gain Morality and thus reach Paragon and higher levels simply by not using the force at all (as well as just generally not be a ******). I would think that the Force user would have to actually use the Force for good, to improve the lives and lots of others, protect the innocent, etc. etc.

Also, the per session rule seems kind of nebulous. I run a game during our lunch hour at work once a week. Our sessions are 50 to 70 minutes. I would think my players would be rolling more often and with fewer potential Conflict than the average group sitting through a 3 to 4 hour session. Perhaps i should have the Force users in my group save up and roll every 3 sessions?

What are your thoughts on this people?

Eh, morality game mechanics have been around since the red box of D&D (where you had to fill in the funny shaped dice with a crayon to be able to read them) and in Star Wars since day one and WEG's dark side points. I fail to see why it's a big deal here - especially since it can so easily be ignored!

I know where you're coming from, Donovan, but I personally feel that there's room for varied approaches in playing the same game. I hate to see arguments dissolve into people saying 'my way is better than yours'.

And I never said there weren't alternatives. I was simply providing an answer to a question asked about why these sorts of debates tend to crop up around Force users, Jedi or otherwise.

You've been quite clear, both recently and in the past, that you don't like any sort of mechanical tracking system for whether a PC is good or evil, and while I disagree, I also respect your decision; after all, it's your game and if you've got players mature enough to not abuse the system, then more power to you.

The wise Dono-san has spoken.

I prefer the mechanical tracking of morality. It's not for everyone, but it's there.

Thanks for the civil discussion, folks.

If we keep being nice to each other, I might not stay out of the shiny new F&D forums!

The problem is, ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50, they are more like 60/40, so there is no zen balance to the dice. The challenge of the game and the point to the 'M' system, skip morality, is that the players aspire to the 40% side of the die and correspondingly the harder path to walk. Simply saying it doesn't matter which side of the die the aspire to narratively is fine, but mechanically the DS has a 20% leg up.

Which is why those in Dark side mode will have the penalties associated with it - more chance of rolling DS pips on the FD (but just as many pips overall), but flip a Destiny at the start of each session and suffer strain threshold penalties.

And there IS kind of a zen balance in the dice... DS shows up more often, but LS results have 2 pips more often.

I like the mechanic overall, but I agree with some others who have said that it seems a little too easy to gain Morality and be a Light Side Paragon. Granted, I haven't tried it out yet, but when I do I think I might institute the floated idea of using a d8 instead of a d10. Either that or not have someone roll at all if they were passive that session.

The problem is, ignoring the Morality system completely, the dice are not 50/50, they are more like 60/40, so there is no zen balance to the dice. The challenge of the game and the point to the 'M' system, skip morality, is that the players aspire to the 40% side of the die and correspondingly the harder path to walk. Simply saying it doesn't matter which side of the die the aspire to narratively is fine, but mechanically the DS has a 20% leg up.

Which is why those in Dark side mode will have the penalties associated with it - more chance of rolling DS pips on the FD (but just as many pips overall), but flip a Destiny at the start of each session and suffer strain threshold penalties.

And there IS kind of a zen balance in the dice... DS shows up more often, but LS results have 2 pips more often.

I think the dice are designed to invoke the allure of the dark side. It's easier to draw power from it, as they say, but more satisfying to draw from the light.

I've actually read over my friend's copy of the Beta, and I'll probably end up using Morality as it's written in the final book. RAW seems to indicate that, no matter your background, once you're Force sensitive you start at 50 Morality. Not sure how close I'll stick to that, but for everything else, I don't mind.

I haven't tried it yet, but is it really that easy to become a LSP (Light Side Paragon)? You start with a single Force die and unless you call upon the Dark Side, you're not using your gifts as often. Forsaking the Dark Side by way of not using a rare and powerful gift to smooth your way is, to me, a great example of being good. Sure, at higher Force ratings you'll be less hindered by the rarity of LS pips, but by then you SHOULD be a LSP. At that point it's not about an extra LS Destiny point (which does grant an eventual DS Destiny point, if used*) or a couple Strain. It's about being a shining beacon for good and self-control when it would be so much easier to give in to your basers desires to achieve your goals.

*Edit: Being a Dark Side character doesn't grant another DS Destiny point that can eventually turn to Light, it actually turns the Light to Dark. However, as it's not as powerful, the Dark Side doesn't increase a Destiny pool as the Light does. I like this as it's easier to turn the Light to Dark (a strong theme in falling).as a LSP you shine brighter, giving another LS Destiny point. However, just as it is with turning a LS Destiny point to Dark because of the presence of the Dark Side, that increase in the Light can easily strengthen the Dark. Am I making any sense?

I like the mechanic overall, but I agree with some others who have said that it seems a little too easy to gain Morality and be a Light Side Paragon. Granted, I haven't tried it out yet, but when I do I think I might institute the floated idea of using a d8 instead of a d10. Either that or not have someone roll at all if they were passive that session.

Well, if someone is actually playing a Force user of a proper Jedi mindset, I think they should be rewarded for not racking up several points of Conflict each session.

Table 9-2: Common Conflict Penalties on page 220 gives a list of actions that would generate Conflict points, and a number of them are things that many PCs would do simply in the course of being an adventurer. Case in point is "resorting to violence as the first solution," which generates 1 Conflict point. I played a Shii-Cho Knight with Justice as her Emotional Strength, and I earned a Conflict point for immediately leaping in to stop a bunch of bandits that were shooting and burning a camp. Basic theft is worth 2 or 3 points of Conflict, and again is a fairly common PC action in many other RPGs; the chart suggests the penalty can be mitigated if the theft is a Robin Hood type of deal, but doesn't say it's negated entirely, as theft is still theft.

So it's not quite as simple to become a Light Side Paragon as it first looks, as the character has to not only actively abstain from undertaking the types of actions that most adventuring parties would as a matter of course, but sometimes even has to step in and keep other party members from doing such things, since you earn a Conflict point if you know someone is about to take a particularly bad action (such as unprovoked assault all the way up to torture and murder) but take no action to stop them.

I think I'm going to try playing a Grey Jedi the next chance I get- a Dark Side user with more than 30 morality points. You get the dark side force dice, you DONT get the dark side strain penalty, you act like a Paragon of the Force to keep your conflict low, but use darkside pips to keep your conflict up

Its a delicate balancing act, and Influence I think is a major power for this chracter type- seeing as it's a force power even a darksider can use light side pips on. Never mind, misremembered the power. That makes going grey a touch more difficult

I am afraid you missed his point again. He was not wrong, as he was not talking about Conflict at all, nor the Morality system. In context, referring to the light/dark distribution on the dice, he is correct.

Ah. Yes, your correct. I did miss his point.

Not sure why he thought it went with what I was saying... but okay.

Yes, if you call the 58/42% split on the Force a Penalty for being a Light Sider (I don't*) then yes, going Dark Side gets a 16% increase in seeing Dark Side pips. Not sure that "balances" with the penalties. Also noted: Actually then using LS pips (and taking strain) won't affect your Morality. Not sure how that weighs in.

* This ignores that of the remaining sides 3 of 5 are 2 pips, making getting multiple Light Side pips far more common than Dark Side pips, on a single die. How this plays out with multiple Force Dice being rolled I'm not sure, my math isn't up to snuff, but I presume it might remain similarly balanced.

Trying to understand this guys graph , it looks like I'm generally correct. With more Force Dice you statistically roll a few more DS pips, but will have plenty of LS pips as well.

Back on topic, I agree with you that the Morality system as written might be too generous. I will need to test it in actual play before I can offer alternatives besides your suggestion of putting it more into the GM's hands. Having played a number of White Wolf games, that is an option I am comfortable with.

I've been having a longish discussion with someone via PMs and it looks to me like the rules are working as intended: "Punish" the truly wicked and those that freely channel the Dark Side, let everyone else become a Paragon.

This won't fly in my games, but it's at least clearing that up for me.

I do think, however, that you are missing one very important benefit of going to the Dark Side: freedom.

I'm not missing that at all. But then maybe we have different players in our groups. If I (or someone else in my group) decided they were going to be a Paragon of Awesome, then, well, that's how they'll play. Oh sure, there might be some scenery chewing lines about temptations here and there, but really the course was set from day 1.

Conversely if someone wanted to game the system and be "good with some misbehavin" (ala Malcolm Reynolds) then they'd do what they do and keep half a weathered eye on their Conflict score and try to gain at least 1-2 points per session (at a minimum).

I've also come to the conclusion that Thematically the Morality System doesn't fit my view of the Force. The Force doesn't care about why your drawing upon it, only how and to what direct use you apply it.

The dispassionate Samurai style Force Swordsman who draws upon the Force without emotion is as "Light Side" as the conflicted Obi-Wan. Even though said Samurai may commit any number of crimes in the course of his duties.

Also there isn't enough "Dark Side deteriorates the Body, Mind, and Soul" going on for me. Sure, -2 Strain Threshold might just fit what we are presented with in EU and in crpgs... but ...

Engaging with their Weakness flips them to Dark side if they are currently in Light. Engaging with their Strength turns them Light side if they are currently Dark. Light side rules are normal. Dark side follows identical mechanics to the book - lose 1 or 2 strain threshold, use DS pips, flip a Destiny at the start of each session, to represent the 'doesn't play well with others' aspect of the Dark side.

How often do you see them "flipping" though?

This could (probably won't, but could) lead to situations where your players try to be "light side" at session's start and only flip "dark" when they've run out of White Destiny Tokens. Or when trying to pull off truly badass Force stunts which require they have more Force Points. And then ending on the "light side" to prepare for the next session's start...

Otherwise I kinda like your idea. Not sure how you'll handle the "old slide into the Dark Side" character arc, but then you might do it non-mechanically, which might be best anyway.

Either that or not have someone roll at all if they were passive that session.

Watch out for the guy who only engages in singular Conflict 1 type acts then....

Well, if someone is actually playing a Force user of a proper Jedi mindset, I think they should be rewarded for not racking up several points of Conflict each session.

They will be rewarded. They'll have either low or no Conflict and on average will gain 2-5 Morality. The shadier types will be getting on average 1-3 Morality.

So it's not quite as simple to become a Light Side Paragon as it first looks, as the character has to not only actively abstain from undertaking the types of actions that most adventuring parties would as a matter of course...

I can't speak for the people you play with, but I've played 'Paragons of Goodness' in games that actively reward you for murdering people of a different skin color*, and chose to not take that path .

Unless the GM actively throws hard choices in the PC's path, literal "no correct answer choices" ("Save Gwen Stacy or this bus load of innocents" type choices) then it won't be very difficult at all.

* That color of course being Goblin and Orc Green. Ah, D&D, color-coding your enemies for ease of the PCs.

Case in point is "resorting to violence as the first solution," which generates 1 Conflict point. I played a Shii-Cho Knight with Justice as her Emotional Strength, and I earned a Conflict point for immediately leaping in to stop a bunch of bandits that were shooting and burning a camp.

Bar patron threatens Luke. Obi-wan attempts to calm the situation by offering to buy patron a drink. Patron draws down on Obi-wan, whose player gets to lop of his arm without generating any conflict.

This is a saving the camp scene. Arn avoids generating conflict because he first tries to resolve the conflict by telling the bad men to go home. They then press the issue, so the player gets to show off his cool fighting skills anyway. Might get some conflict for killing the bad knight after said knight kills his horse, but hey, you want to be getting some conflict.