So far, I am liking the Morality mechanic, but I only plan to use it in relation to my Force-sensitive in the party. The primary reason has to do with how the force narratively obeys actions, but also guides. If someone is falling to the dark side, then the dark side of the force also takes its toll on the player. I don't see this as moderating behaviour, as a PC could legitimately choose to go dark side altogether. While I still have to get my hands on it, the Morality mechanic from FaD at least puts a spectrum up where a player can see where they are at.

After all, one cannot expect to play a character based on Obi-Wan and still be an outright murder hobo.

I think the interesting piece with this, is unlike either WEG or WotC's versions, someone who falls to the Dark Side doesn't automatically become an NPC.

I don't see how morality is policing any more than obligation or duty.

I suggest putting him in situations where he can't use computer or mechanic to get out of it and must rely on his group. Or if he alienates the group, have him figure out that life on his own is way too dangerous. Maybe he'll appreciate the group better then.

We don't do checks against each other in our group but then we generally do well with role playing our limitations. And we tend to enjoy putting our chars in bad outcomes for fun. Sounds like you need to sit down and have a talk with your player about his expectations vs yours and the rest of the group. if that can't be worked it, maybe he'd be happier with another group that plays more his style.

Also if he doesn't want to fix something, he doesn't have to, but should receive a consequence like the others don't defend him and let him get shot. or send a baddie after him and nobody cones to his rescue because they don't like him.

I am not sure I can see what the problem is, I am not seeing any mechanic within the Morality system which forces you to do anything or even forces you to 'roleplay' something which you should probably be doing irrespective of the game system since that is the point of roleplaying.

The only real "problem" is adding Morality to an EotE campaign where characters are more likely to be shady and do shady things.For instance I can guarantee my "Pacifist" Jawa would have lost and gained bunches of Morality over the last few months since he has no issue with whole sale murdering Imperial Officers and Stormtroopers, but goes out of his way to be decent and helpful to everyone else (including slavers and other unsavory folks).As well, slavery was one of the things our campaign somewhat dwelled on, with a Jawa, a Twi'lek, and a Trandoshan PC things got muddied fairly fast.

Somehow this concept got injected into this thread, but unless I missed something the Morality mechanic doesn't do this. So all talk of "die rolls affecting how their character acts" are just muddying the waters for the OP.

Since it was injected by the OP to explain why his player seems to think Morality "will be bad", it's rather germane.

The morality mechanic differentiates murder from self-defense. If they attack you first, you can kill them and not take a morality hit.

Over on the AoR forum there is a picture of what gives you conflict points: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/113857-fd-morality-and-conflict/?p=1210371

During the game, you gain conflict points for doing evil things. At the end of the session, roll a d10. If your result is less than your conflict score, loose the difference in Morality. If you roll higher, gain the difference in Morality. So your Morality doesn't change each time tou preform an action.

-EF

To clarify what I mean is this. He doesn't like it when something exists/happends to force your character to act in a certain way. The example with the Toydarian Merchant PC is a prime example. He dislikes doing rolls like that because it forces him to go against what his character would do. His argument written to me exactly as he typed it is "Not sure I am a fan of the morality part, that to me is part of the roleplay of the character." He thinks that having this emotional weakness and strength forces your character to act in a way they wouldn't. I don't get how, but that is his argument.

<wit>

I dislike when combat checks against my character cause it to go against what my character would do. My character doesn't like to be hurt, so combat checks that hurt him are just letting the dice tell the story instead of the players role-playing it out.

</wit>

The morality mechanic differentiates murder from self-defense. If they attack you first, you can kill them and not take a morality hit.

Han in ANH, murders Greedo (Han shot first), lies for gain, and is only motivated by greed.

Does he turn this around at the end and in later movies? Kinda. He still rarely acts of out selflessness, rather it's personal loyalty (which is neither positive nor negative).

Is he "dark side". No. But had he continued acting as he did in the first movie, he might have slid off the end into "-2 Strain Threshold" territory. Maybe.

My Jawa would have racked up far more DS than LS, but then when it came to Imperial Uniforms, he saw red and turned homicidal. He condoned slavery of "lesser beings" (droids, twi'leks, basically everyone except Jawas)*, theft, ordering slaves to their deaths**, theft, lying for profit, theft, was cannibalistic*** (our Jawas eat everything), and did I mention theft?

* Though he never owned slaves for very long...

** The one time he did enslave anything (a pair of droids) it was with the expressed purpose of having them die in fiery shuttle crash... as a diversion I had them crash a Lambda shuttle into Teemo the Hutt's Palace, hoping to a) kill Teemo and b) kill an Imperial Lieutenant. Both lived. **** those incompetent droids!

*** Which never actually came up aside from a few conversations.

He dislikes doing rolls like that because it forces him to go against what his character would do.

Seriously, I hate when players pull this crap. This is a game of imagination that takes place in our hearts and minds. We (hopefully) create deep characters with strengths, weaknesses, loves, hates, desires, etc. The rules reflect the fickle randomness of things, albeit in this game in a way that builds the story.

If every social scene needs to role-played, why not combat as well? You don't do that because let's face it, not everyone can fight IRL (and it's dangerous and probably illegal). You let stats and dice decide, adding in description to give more flavor. The same goes for social scenes. Some people aren't charming IRL but want to be in a game. So their stats and the dice decide and if they come up with a great line or such, give a Boost die or two, just like when the Hired Gun vividly describes how he rushes and slides into cover, his armor clacking against the durasteel rubble, a rain of red, searing beams narrowly missing him, all to grant some Defense. You get the picture.

Personally, if a player complained because they got beaten socially, I'd have the next antagonist automatically succeed at Their Thing because it's "what they'd do"!

I'm grumpy...

First there are two aspects to Morality in F&D. One is the Conflict/Morality mechanic and the other is the Morality/Emotional Strengths and Weaknesses table. I like both and I especially like the later because along with Obligation and Duty it gives Players some good role-play guides.

So I've been thinking on this and I'm going to try this approach:

I'll use Morality (Emotional Strengths and Weaknesses) and the Conflict mechanic as is for all my Force using PCs and if they choose a non-F&D Career they may also use the Obligation or Duty mechanic at character creation as well, the normal limits will still apply.

For my non-Force Users I'm going have them to use Obligation or Duty normally but also have them choose an emotional Strength and Weakness purely for role playing. We'll also use the Conflict mechanic but it will be used mostly as a guide for both the Players and myself to determine how those PCs rate on a Hero/Villain scale. They won't gain any Strain but if they cross below the Dark side threshold I'll flip DPs and if they go above into the Light I'll add DPs.

I think this is a good compromise, Force users are treated normally and non-Force users aren't penalized (except of course in the normal way with Obligation, in-game repercussions etc.) but the whole party gets treated by the Force equally (DPs) if they go Hero or Villain. It gives Players a way to keep track of how their PCs are perceived/in touch with the Force within the setting, as well as another way for me to keep track of which PCs are goodies and baddies.

The complexion thing is a very visible indicator of health, and it feeds into the themes of the Dark Side being a corruption of the mind, body, and soul. Or you can ignore the strain penalty. That works too.

I may have to come up with some mechanics for that.

I absolutely hated the Morality system. Needlessly fiddly where you're tracking two scores (conflict and morality as a %) and it feels like some awkward hold-over from WHFRP3. And it penalises players for role-playing, in a narrative game. But we don't use the numbers for Duty or Obligation either, and we won't do for this.

We've basically worked out a simpler system withot the numbers where players switch from Light to Dark and back at will by 'engaging' their Morality. WIth all the attendent 'Doesn't Play Well With Others' drawbacks for Darkside users. It reflects the Zen/balance aspect that I'm trying to push.

This kind of mechanic is going to be a complete bastard to police by GM's.

Its a big galaxy, full of thousands of cultures and societies that have their own morality,

But the galaxy also runs (movie canon) on mid-late 20th century western, quasi-christian earth culture and society's morals for determining the difference between good and evil.

Not turning it into a religious or cultural stab at any particular group of people by the way, but just saying that its morally acceptable in some societies to carry out honour killings for adultary, eat deceased relatives to mourn them and send 100 people off to die to prevent the deaths of 1000's in wars. Heck, we've had religious conflct for centuries on 'divine command' where two or more groups state that an action is right if god has decreed it and the correct action is performed because it is duty- not because of any consequences arising from that action may necessarily be 'good'

As much as it isn't really stated openly very often- Jedi and Sith are belief systems, both of which are diametric in those beliefs but share the same source of their (very real in game) abilities based on the depths of conviction in those beliefs.

To be succinct, I don't think 'Morality' is a very good compass for what is essentially an often grey area in most cultures/societies and then trying to apply the same, subjective grey-area ethics to a Good vs Evil/Jedi vs Sith system which is extremely black and white.

There's got to be a better measure in other words, than a subjective view-

Is the outcome or the intent the measure?

In the long run, it might be worth tracking Morality for non-Force users. After all, if your players are several story arcs into a campaign and one of them decides to pursue Force sensitivity, where should their Morality value be? It's not as if their actions up to that point have no meaning; maybe they were really good or terrible people. Shouldn't their actions up to that point reflect on their Morality?

Tracking Morality, even if it doesn't have any real mundane benefit, would be at least a good idea for a GM in the event that a player wants to become Force sensitive later on.

This kind of mechanic is going to be a complete bastard to police by GM's.

Its a big galaxy, full of thousands of cultures and societies that have their own morality,

But the galaxy also runs (movie canon) on mid-late 20th century western, quasi-christian earth culture and society's morals for determining the difference between good and evil.

Not turning it into a religious or cultural stab at any particular group of people by the way, but just saying that its morally acceptable in some societies to carry out honour killings for adultary, eat deceased relatives to mourn them and send 100 people off to die to prevent the deaths of 1000's in wars. Heck, we've had religious conflct for centuries on 'divine command' where two or more groups state that an action is right if god has decreed it and the correct action is performed because it is duty- not because of any consequences arising from that action may necessarily be 'good'

As much as it isn't really stated openly very often- Jedi and Sith are belief systems, both of which are diametric in those beliefs but share the same source of their (very real in game) abilities based on the depths of conviction in those beliefs.

To be succinct, I don't think 'Morality' is a very good compass for what is essentially an often grey area in most cultures/societies and then trying to apply the same, subjective grey-area ethics to a Good vs Evil/Jedi vs Sith system which is extremely black and white.

There's got to be a better measure in other words, than a subjective view-

Is the outcome or the intent the measure?

It's the intent that matters. You gain 10 conflict if you murder someone…but none if you kill them in self defense. One of the 1 Conflict triggers is listed as:

Resorting to Violence as the First Solution : When confronted with a problem, the PC defaults to violent acts to solve it, without exploring any other options. This penalty can be mitigated if the PC is the one being attacked.

A 5 Conflict trigger:

Unprovoked Violence or Assault : The PC assaults, beats, or otherwise attacks an NPC for no reason.

And a 10 Conflict trigger:

Murder : The PCs murder a character (killing someone who is helpless or no threat to the PC).

Dishing out violence to those who initiated it is fine, but unnecessary roughness and murder of the helpless is a no-go.

-EF

To be succinct, I don't think 'Morality' is a very good compass for what is essentially an often grey area in most cultures/societies and then trying to apply the same, subjective grey-area ethics to a Good vs Evil/Jedi vs Sith system which is extremely black and white.

There's got to be a better measure in other words, than a subjective view-

I don't really buy all that cultural relativism stuff, and I think it's possible to be objective about one's own and other people's cultures. It mostly comes down to abuse of power, which is pretty universal. Honour killing? Evil, it's about perpetuating patriarchy. Voter suppression? Evil, it's about denying people rights and voice. Eating dead relatives? Pretty disgusting to me , but they're dead, so who really cares? They can toss my body to the wolves after harvesting it for anything useful when I'm dead...something that would offend a lot of people in other cultures, but wouldn't be immoral.

Anyway, in game terms, Morality is whatever the Force decides. And it seems pretty clear from the movies that rage and hate and power-dominance is "dark", whereas fibs and small lies and a bit of manipulation aren't terrible if they're even noticed at all.

One other thing I'd probably bring into it is a bit of chaos theory, i.e.: the butterfly flaps and creates a storm a world away. Small things sometimes have big consequences, and it might just be that even a small lie to "that person" is going to lead down a darker path. IOW, the Morality mechanic can be used as a story device, not just as a penalty/reward system.

To say nothing of the fact that the entire Star Wars universe is based on a caricature presentation with good and evil its core basis. It was created to be completely and utterly not gray, moral ambiguity does not exist. So when some talk about how it doesn't take gray into account, I would never tell someone how to run their game, but if they think the system doesn't take gray into account, they're right, but the issues it creates at the table aren't being introduced by the system, they're being introduced by the GM. The game isn't designed to be run as morally ambiguous or gray, so it doesn't function well with that approach.

I have never understood GMs who have problems with players going all "scum and villainy" in EotE. It's what the game was made for.

The game isn't designed to be run as morally ambiguous or gray, so it doesn't function well with that approach.

And I agree with whafrog, at the core of the Jedi/Sith divide is Power and How One Uses It.

* It's mostly this Morality Mechanic which awards "Heroism" and punishes "Villainy". In a Narrative system? What? What happened to "Let the GMs handle it? Does FFG think we need mechanics to keep from running "Teh Ebil Sith" games? Or that it would stop anyone? This choice in mechanics (and it's happened in a few other places) is what makes me question them as designers.

* It's mostly this Morality Mechanic which awards "Heroism" and punishes "Villainy". In a Narrative system? What? What happened to "Let the GMs handle it? Does FFG think we need mechanics to keep from running "Teh Ebil Sith" games? Or that it would stop anyone? This choice in mechanics (and it's happened in a few other places) is what makes me question them as designers.

Um, whaa!? Really? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? This is not designed, nor intended to keep anyone from playing anything they want to. This system allows to play good or evil characters. FFG did not make mechanics to keep you from playing a Sith. Perhaps instead of spouting gibberish, you should actually get the book and read it before making decisions and judgments about it. But we already know you don't buy these "horrible" products because you don't agree with their business practices. How dare you FFG be a business and try to make money off of us penniless geeks!

Here is an excerpt from FaD Beta pages 33 and 35:

"Morality is, simply put, the measure of right and wrong. Though the Star Wars universe has shades of moral relativism, it is primarily a universe of good and evil. Morality measures how good or evil characters are. It is a measure of their actions, thoughts, and attitudes, and it also tracks how they have helped, harmed, or hindered those around them. In addition, a character’s Morality can often be shaped and guided by his personality, and therefore a character’s emotional

I absolutely hated the Morality system. Needlessly fiddly where you're tracking two scores (conflict and morality as a %) and it feels like some awkward hold-over from WHFRP3.

Hiyas!

Not very versed in the topic (WFRP3), however, I was under the impression that the FFGSW system is the WFRP3 system, basickally.

L

Here's something to be mindful of. Palpatine is the embodiment of the Dark Side in the period in which all three game systems are put. He embraces the dark side wholeheartedly, but in his mind, he believes what he is doing is entirely right and "good" from his point of view. However, there's no question that his Morality score in this context would be somewhere less than zero, but he justifies it without any hesitation, and any movement toward the light side is a sign of weakness. After all, "peace is a lie..." or so it goes.

Morality, particularly when it comes to force-users in this game, is simply to show where on the spectrum one is. While I may have remarked in either this thread or another one that it penalizes murderhobos, I'm not necessarily so sure. There are both benefits and drawbacks to going to either end of the spectrum. What it does do is call out Murderhobos with glow-sticks who somehow think that they are light-siders. One can't just kill someone who is defenseless without consequences... namely the dangers of the dark side.

That having been said, the benefits to being a light-sider is evident with the increased strain threshold, with a dark-sider having a reduced strain threshold. However, a dark-sider is able to use force pips far more often (black or white), getting that quick-and-easy jump on an opponent who must weigh whether to use it. In addition, every dark-side user present in the party poisons the destiny point pool, whereas a light-sider adds light points to the pool wholesale. Benefits and drawbacks to each, but players can still play their force user however they choose... but there are consequences to both sides of the force.

Um, whaa!? Really? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about?

The mechanic is (poorly) designed to punish those whom "go to the Dark Side" and reward Heroic characters (and Heroic Groups).

That's it in a nutshell.

And I don't think it'll even do that very well. As long as most characters aren't complete douchebags, they can still get their Murder Hobo on every 3rd or 4th session and easily climb up the Morality scale.

... you should actually .... read it before making decisions and judgments about it.

At some point our GM will buy it (once it's no longer tagged with the 'stigma' of Beta). It's his way.

We already know that you hate the designers and the system, so I even wonder why you bother posting on here other than to troll and start arguments.

But mostly I love the Dice Mechanic, and that was the thing I thought would most turn me off (I tend to kneejerkingly dislike "funky" dice mechanics, I'm still not sold on FATE's dice mechanic and I like FATE ).

But since you refuse to buy the books...

@ MKX This is not about policing anyone. It is a gauge to see how light or dark your character is. If you are light, then you get certain bonuses to a few things, and if you are dark, the same thing.

Going Dark Side is nothing but penalties. Which is completely different than "then you get certian bonuses to a few things". There are no bonuses to going Dark Side... Okay, maybe generating Force Points from the DS results on the Force Die could be considered a "bonus", since there are more DS sides but that's a nebulous "bonus". Balanced with a reduction in Strain Threshold and increasing the number of Dark Destiny tokens (by flipping a Light Destiny)? Not worth it.

Contrarily, Light Siders gain Wound Threshold and increase the number of Light Destiny tokens by straight out adding one.

Not too much different than KTOR and TOR really.

Blink, blink. Ah, I'm not even gonna bother.

Morality is part of the Star Wars setting. Light side and Dark side. The central themes of the movies are about morality whether its the fall of a corrupt Republic into an evil empire, overthrowing that evil empire or failings in morality leading to a fall to the dark side or redemption back to the light side.

As for the role-play aspect of it and the mechanics: actions have consequences. That's part of the story.

It's part of the fun of the game as a character struggles with difficult choices and tries to overcome personal failings and succeeds or fails, or strives to be a paragon of morality.

The F&D beta specifically mentions that the Morality mechanic is NOT "intended to spawn arguments between players as to whether an action is is "evil" or not and whether a character should be penalized for engaging in it" as it provides clear guidelines as to what gains Conflict and a randomized method of gaining/losing Morality at the end of each session.

I'd even go so far as to say that the GM giving you Conflict for your actions is NOT punishment. It's not supposed to necessarily be a deterrent to you in making character choices. If you make dark or even evil choices in the game there are consequences. Just like sticking a Hutt with a fork. Playing a character that gains Conflict is a perfectly valid way to play a character and the Morality mechanic is not meant to prevent or discourage players from doing so. The mechanic seems to do a good job of adding the feel of the ebb and flow of the influence of the light side and dark side.

And here you expose your failure to grasp the simple rules.

Going Dark Side is nothing but penalties. Which is completely different than "then you get certian bonuses to a few things". There are no bonuses to going Dark Side... Okay, maybe generating Force Points from the DS results on the Force Die could be considered a "bonus", since there are more DS sides but that's a nebulous "bonus". Balanced with a reduction in Strain Threshold and increasing the number of Dark Destiny tokens (by flipping a Light Destiny)? Not worth it.

Contrarily, Light Siders gain Wound Threshold and increase the number of Light Destiny tokens by straight out adding one.

Being able to spend generated DS is a big benefit. That's one of the challenges of playing a powerful force user is getting a FR high enough to be consistent and if you don't have to worry about using DS pips then you don't need as high a FR to be as effective.

Once you become a paragon of the dark side you follow the same (but opposite) rules of generating force points from force power checks (e.g., if you want to spend lightside pips you'll need to flip a destinty point and suffer strain) so your benefits are diminished at this point but....the dark side is supposed to be quick and easy but not more powerful than the light side. It's very consistent with the setting (in fact the Force Die itself follows this theme - more sides have a DS pip, but the sides with lightside pips are more likely to have 2 pips rather than just one).

The game isn't designed to be run as morally ambiguous or gray, so it doesn't function well with that approach.

This game may not be (and I'll disagree here*) but Star Wars runs just fine in the greys. I've run a few SW campaigns over the years and some of the best moments of them came when the characters were confronted with truly terrible choices. When they had to wade into the grey to come out the other side, unsure of themselves. Where they came close to falling and pulled themselves back from the brink... or leapt over the edge.

And I agree with whafrog, at the core of the Jedi/Sith divide is Power and How One Uses It.

* It's mostly this Morality Mechanic which awards "Heroism" and punishes "Villainy". In a Narrative system? What? What happened to "Let the GMs handle it? Does FFG think we need mechanics to keep from running "Teh Ebil Sith" games? Or that it would stop anyone? This choice in mechanics (and it's happened in a few other places) is what makes me question them as designers.

The game lets you play a Sith game if you want. If a character falls to the dark side they don't become an NPC. There's just negative consequences in the long run for falling to the dark side - in exchange for all the easy power it gave you getting there. It fits the narrative of the Star Wars setting.

And you don't instantly fall to the dark side. You have to consistently make dark side choices to fall to the dark side. So you can very easily play in the grey areas if you want. You can throw in difficult moral choices all you want (something I like to do as well).

The system doesn't punish players but adds some consequences for player actions. Yes, if characters continually make dark side choices then they will suffer some negative consequences but that's part of falling to the dark side.

As for the role-play aspect of it and the mechanics: actions have consequences. That's part of the story.

It will still reward "negative" (and simply non-heroic) behavior by granting Morality increases (and eventually the benes that come with it). Honestly, it's really only going to punish the "Unnecessary/Unprovoked" Murder/Torture Hobos.