Morality System - "Roleplay Policing"

By Ebak, in General Discussion

Wow.

I want submit this thread as Exhibit A as to why we need the Force and Destiny Beta forum up.

This is why I promised myself I'd stay out of the F&D Beta threads.

Meh, all been said and done before. Just a rehashing of alignment and paladin debates, "You can't control my character!" and rationalizing bad behaviour, along with "I don't like FFG's business plan so that has forced my to pirate the material!" (an ongoing theme with just about any game as far as I've seen as you can not please everyone).

Personally, from what I have read I like the Morality mechanic. For a game more focused on Light side characters it allows people to be Dark as well. Is it more advantageous to be Light side? Slightly, but not overwhelmingly so, as i see it more as a flavour thing. For the most part it is more about role-playing and the results of that role-playing. I like that.

And honestly, if this kind of talk annoys you, just ignore it. Or sit back, munch your popcorn and drink your beer, and laugh your ass off at it.

Guys, the dark side paragon adjustments make sense. Think about it. A Dark Side Paragon character is going to be ruled by their passions, rather than their reason. How does the system reflect the ability of a character to override their passions through reason... STRAIN! Ergo, your Light Side Paragon has had a ton of practice at overriding their passions, they get a small bonus (1 5 pt talent) at max Morality. The Dark Side Paragon, similarly but oppositely, is so BAD at controlling their passions that they are effectively less able to override, as evidenced by a reduced Strain Threshold.

Other than that, it is just about spending force points. The Force Die is more likely to show a pip with a Dark Side point on it. That is FACT. It is also more likely to show 2 Light Side pips when it does show a Light Side Face. Rolling small numbers of dice, this will generally generate Dark Side Points more often, and Light Side Points in greater quantity when they show. This will make utilizing their powers a little easier for Dark Side Paragons (as their desired point will show up more often), though if they get unlucky, they will have to spend Destiny and Strain to "corrupt" a Light Side Point to the Dark so they can use it.

The only real penalty I see to a Dark Side Paragon is the loss of 2 points of strain, which while bad is not game changing, and it fits thematically with the setting. Let it ride, use it, play with it, put it in your table and see what happens as your game progresses. Without testing, you cannot analyze, you can only opine.

And Evileyesore, simply complaining about the mechanic without providing a replacement does not help the discussion AT ALL, it is just bitching and moaning for no purpose other than to hear (or read) yourself speak (or post). I much prefer those who dissent to have a plan to correct what they see as a fault. I have not seen that from you to date.

Now, on to your regularly scheduled Popcorn and Beer inducing conversation!

Kevynn

And honestly, if this kind of talk annoys you, just ignore it. Or sit back, munch your popcorn and drink your beer, and laugh your ass off at it.

Pass me pale ale, please. English-style preferrably.

Can anyone think of a time a thread went more than 5 pages and remained a productive exchange of ideas?

The Far Horizons one is still pretty healthy at 7.

What makes Jedi/Force crap such a divisive topic?

Can anyone think of a time a thread went more than 5 pages and remained a productive exchange of ideas?

The Far Horizons one is still pretty healthy at 7.

What makes Jedi/Force crap such a divisive topic?

I think it's mostly cuz some people just can't reconcile playing the game with good guys being good and bad guys being bad. If you just play it like Lucas created it, it works just fine.

Moral ambiguity is not a strong suit for the Star Wars universe. The lore just is not ambiguous as to who are evil and who are good. There is a bunch of neutral in the middle; but the evil peeps are EVIL, and the good peeps are GOOD. That is just Star Wars.

Kevynn

ALL Peeps are evil! Nasty, little marshmallow birds...

I agree, 2P51. It plays fine as it is.

But I would also say that it plays fine with more moral complexities too.

The films are aligned to a good/evil ideal, but we also see characters fall or be redeemed. There’s room for the ‘Edge of the Empire’ style play for those who want it.

Those wanting moral greys, or playing Imperials or Sith, or want to play their ‘dark heroes’ or Mass Effect Renegades, or just ‘Han Shot First’ characters, aren’t ‘doing it wrong’ (I know you weren’t saying that 2P51!). Nor does it automatically make them ‘murder hobos’.

The EU seems to do moral greys; I think Kaosoe mentioned the post-movies EU Republic which had an Alliance/Jedi civil war without any real ‘bad guys’. And someone else pointed out that, say, a retributive strike that resulted in the genocide of the Yuuzhan Vong might not actually be a bad thing, everything considered.

For my group, it’s our age, maybe. None of the players (or me as GM) wants PG13 any more. Maybe that’s a sad thing, but that’s just how we are in our forties. We’re used to Mass Effect and Dragon Age and ‘shades of grey’ moral choices. So we have warring factions with various degrees of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and The Force mostly aligned to balance and Zen. As long as there’s still consequences for all actions, good or bad, I’m happy.

(and as for Morality, it’s the fiddliness and book-keeping I dislike more than the moral imperatives...)

Maybe I'm not paying attention but I've noticed these boards are so friendly that when threads do get venemous, as this one has (and no blame to anyone in particular), it really stands out. I'd like to think that's a pretty good indicator of the general tone here. I've asked (at least to me) some knucklehead questions and have never been treated poorly.

OK, back to the Force freakout. :)

Even in the prequels, there are shades of grey. Both the Jedi and the Republic set out with the intention to do good, but they are both flawed in ways that make them end up enabling evil.

I agree, 2P51. It plays fine as it is.

But I would also say that it plays fine with more moral complexities too.

The films are aligned to a good/evil ideal, but we also see characters fall or be redeemed. There’s room for the ‘Edge of the Empire’ style play for those who want it.

Those wanting moral greys, or playing Imperials or Sith, or want to play their ‘dark heroes’ or Mass Effect Renegades, or just ‘Han Shot First’ characters, aren’t ‘doing it wrong’ (I know you weren’t saying that 2P51!). Nor does it automatically make them ‘murder hobos’.

The EU seems to do moral greys; I think Kaosoe mentioned the post-movies EU Republic which had an Alliance/Jedi civil war without any real ‘bad guys’. And someone else pointed out that, say, a retributive strike that resulted in the genocide of the Yuuzhan Vong might not actually be a bad thing, everything considered.

For my group, it’s our age, maybe. None of the players (or me as GM) wants PG13 any more. Maybe that’s a sad thing, but that’s just how we are in our forties. We’re used to Mass Effect and Dragon Age and ‘shades of grey’ moral choices. So we have warring factions with various degrees of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and The Force mostly aligned to balance and Zen. As long as there’s still consequences for all actions, good or bad, I’m happy.

(and as for Morality, it’s the fiddliness and book-keeping I dislike more than the moral imperatives...)

The only problem with this is while I agree thematically and narratively it makes for good storytelling, in a game with a mechanical function I wouldn't allow people to play it like a closed hydraulic system. ie "I do a little X amount of bad, so I do an equal X amount of good and even things out" It shouldn't work like that, we had a saying in the military, it takes 10 'atta boys' to wipe out one 'Oh Sh*t!'.

This is why I promised myself I'd stay out of the F&D Beta threads.

After seeing some of the bile and vitriol espoused over the past couple pages (some of which have zilch to do with the Morality mechanic), I am very much inclined to agree.

The sooner a F&D Beta forum goes up, the better.

What makes Jedi/Force crap such a divisive topic?

Where I to hazard a guess, it's that many players prefer to have varying shades of gray in their campaigns, with the good guys not always being so good (90's anti-heroes for instance). Problem is that Star Wars as a setting (going purely by the movies) has either a very, very light shade of grey (Han Solo, Lando Calrissian) or very, very dark shades of grey (Boba Fett). The good guys are genuinely good (they might have some flaws, but they do what's right because it's the right thing to do), and the bad guys (the Empire) are genuinely dark, with Palpatine sitting as a black hole of evilness at the Empire's core. Vader's still pretty ruthless, but he's more goal-orientated than simply doing evil for evil's sake.

The notion of "Grey Jedi" is nothing new, and has been around since the WEG days, with players that wanted to use the cool dark side powers like Force Lightning and Telekinetic Kill without having to worry about falling to the dark side; there's been justifications by the truckload as to why their character should be deemed a heroic figure even as they're blasting people with Force lightning (which is the epitome of dark side powers). The Jedi Knight series of games didn't help, as the designers figured "screw it, just let the players use whatever powers they want!" and thus Kyle Katarn became the poster-child for Grey Jedi types.

And then you've got what I guess you could call the "purists" who prefer to stick to the vision of Star Wars as Lucas first presented it back in 1977, where morality is black and white and even a morally dubious character like Han Solo turns out to be one of the good guys at the end. They're the types more interested in actually playing a Jedi as opposed to a psychic thug with a laser sword, and feel that the dark side of the Force is something to generally be avoided (unless you're intending to play a villainous character).

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 don't see that people wanting to explore a middle ground automatically makes you a thug or murder hobo. F&D actually surprised me by allowing you to play darker side characters without automatically making them NPCs as previous games did. If players enjoy the shades of grey presented in EoE and want to play a 'Han Shot First' Force-user, then that's fine.

To some degree, F&D takes the whole 'Jedi' thing out anyway, because whatever the PCs are, they're probably not actual 'Jedi' anyway by RAW.

And that really is it from me on the whole awkward subject. I promised I'd stay away from the inevitable backlash, and I think that's wise.

Edited by Maelora

(and as for Morality, it’s the fiddliness and book-keeping I dislike more than the moral imperatives...)

Hand-wave it.

If the table agrees that narratively, a PC has gone over to the dark side, she has. If it's obvious to all that she redeems herself at some later date, done.

The bestest part of the expanded Light/Dark ruleset is the effect of how being either Light or Dark determines which pips you get and how your powers work.

Were I to ditch the Morality tracking, I'd toss the whole chart, including strain and DP effects just to avoid pointless bickering.

And Evileyesore, simply complaining about the mechanic without providing a replacement does not help the discussion AT ALL, it is just bitching and moaning for no purpose other than to hear (or read) yourself speak (or post).

I have no answer for what I see as broken. So I poke it here... hoping someone will say something interesting or insightful and either give me an idea to work into an answer, or just pop out an answer themselves.

If I instead just sit on my hands and post nothing... nothing useful occurs.

The only problem with this is while I agree thematically and narratively it makes for good storytelling, in a game with a mechanical function I wouldn't allow people to play it like a closed hydraulic system. ie "I do a little X amount of bad, so I do an equal X amount of good and even things out" It shouldn't work like that, we had a saying in the military, it takes 10 'atta boys' to wipe out one 'Oh Sh*t!' .

The problem is the rules do not bear this out. A character can do "wrong" and still gain in Morality, can even lose morality (bad die roll or do something truly wrong) and then make it back in one or two sessions of just being "a good guy" or even by being "not so bad" and getting lucky.

That's a thematic break in the system. It will reward all but the most heinous, and only really punish those that go out of their way to be consistently heinous.

Of course, this might be the design intent. Allow shady 'Han Shot First" types to still become Paragons of goodness and light whilst continuing to shoot first. Or steal. Or lie for profit. Or a myriad of other "non-Murder Hobo" behavior.

And that's the other thing I'm trying to figure out. Is that intent in these rules? Only punish the truly wicked and the shady but unlucky?

Edited by evileeyore

The problem is the rules do not bear this out. A character can do "wrong" and still gain in Morality, can even lose morality (bad die roll or do something truly wrong) and then make it back in one or two sessions of just being "a good guy" or even by being "not so bad" and getting lucky.

I'd use that as a narrative opportunity to enact what I mentioned earlier. It may be that a white lie here and there is okay, but maybe *in this instance* it was a bad idea. I think that's kind of the point of it: is your Jedi really in tune with the Force, or is he rationalizing his actions? The Morality check that goes the opposite direction from what one expects can add to the mystery of the Force. One would think with greater Discipline comes a greater ability to correctly discern the proper course of action, but even Yoda made mistakes that he thought were good decisions at the time. The mechanic would have dropped his Morality, leaving him with a sense of unease...maybe even a "disturbance".

I'm not saying anyone has to use the mechanics, but they could be used to inform and build on a larger story. It's the same as when a player rolls a triumph and says "I know a guy who can get me that special thing." Only this is for the GM.

And I don't see that people wanting to explore a middle ground automatically makes you a thug or murder hobo. F&D actually surprised me by allowing you to play darker side characters without automatically making them NPCs as previous games did. If players enjoy the shades of grey presented in EoE and want to play a 'Han Shot First' Force-user, then that's fine.

To some degree, F&D takes the whole 'Jedi' thing out anyway, because whatever the PCs are, they're probably not actual 'Jedi' anyway by RAW.

I am not sure I entirely agree with you. the rules are not absolutely rigid. Ignoring for the moment how rigidly non force users would or would not be held to the morality rules (personally I think that force users should be held to a higher standard), as the rules stand Han shooting first would not count as murder since Greedo was already threatening him with a blaster and had announced his intention to kill Han, That makes it self-defence as Greedo was not helpless and was most definitely a threat to him.

So long as the grey characters don't regularly murder, torture, commit unprovoked assault/destruction of property then the odds are that the morality loss will be minimal.

As to the faff of tracking conflict I don't think it needs to be to that fiddly. No more than tracking wounds, Destiny points etc.

As someone has already said though, use what rules you like and discard the ones you don't. So long as the group enjoy the game I call that a win.

E

And Evileyesore, simply complaining about the mechanic without providing a replacement does not help the discussion AT ALL, it is just bitching and moaning for no purpose other than to hear (or read) yourself speak (or post).

If I had figured it all out, I'd have posted my "answer".

I have no answer for what I see as broken. So I poke it here... hoping someone will say something interesting or insightful and either give me an idea to work into an answer, or just pop out an answer themselves.

If I instead just sit on my hands and post nothing... nothing useful occurs.

The only problem with this is while I agree thematically and narratively it makes for good storytelling, in a game with a mechanical function I wouldn't allow people to play it like a closed hydraulic system. ie "I do a little X amount of bad, so I do an equal X amount of good and even things out" It shouldn't work like that, we had a saying in the military, it takes 10 'atta boys' to wipe out one 'Oh Sh*t!' .

Thematically, I agree with the bolded statement.

The problem is the rules do not bear this out. A character can do "wrong" and still gain in Morality, can even lose morality (bad die roll or do something truly wrong) and then make it back in one or two sessions of just being "a good guy" or even by being "not so bad" and getting lucky.

Do you feel that the Conflict scores aren't weighted correctly? Should the GM hand out more conflict than the amounts suggested in the beta?

I want to address your concerns so we can turn this thread into something constructive.

And Evileyesore, simply complaining about the mechanic without providing a replacement does not help the discussion AT ALL, it is just bitching and moaning for no purpose other than to hear (or read) yourself speak (or post).

If I had figured it all out, I'd have posted my "answer".

I have no answer for what I see as broken. So I poke it here... hoping someone will say something interesting or insightful and either give me an idea to work into an answer, or just pop out an answer themselves.

If I instead just sit on my hands and post nothing... nothing useful occurs.

I never said you should be posting THE ANSWER (at least, it was not intended that way). What I am looking for is an alternative, at least a kernel of an idea for an alternative. No single individual is 100% correct 100% of the time. Post some ideas as to way to make it better, and let those ideas bounce and percolate in other minds to try and find a more-to-your-liking way to handle the situation. Just poking the bear only makes the bear handler angry. Explaining why you think the bear should move to the left, however, is far more likely to be met with civil responses and result in your desired outcome of moving the bear off of your foot.

Kevynn.

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.

Edited by Maelora

Do you feel that the Conflict scores aren't weighted correctly? Should the GM hand out more conflict than the amounts suggested in the beta?

As the rules stand, Han can become a Paragon of goodness and light. I don't think that's what his character story represents though. To me his arc was "shady loner makes friends and extends his hidden sense of loyalty to them".

Sure, we can just handwave it aside saying "he's not a Force user", but what if he was?

Actually I'm not sure it should be rolled at all. The GM should define (if only to themself) a number of Morality to be "gained" in the course of a "difficult morale choices" mission. And then adjust how much the PCs gain based on the actions they took. Were they truly righteous and good? Then they get the full award. Did they have to lie, cheat, and steal their way to success for the Greater Good? Then maybe they gain a few points for being victorious. Did they exceed their "morale authority" by murdering, torturing, etc? Then they will obviously lose some. Did they play too fast and loose with "the grey areas" but not really do wrong? Then it's a wash with no gain, no loss.

Also I'm generally against "benes for being good", "negs for the evils". I kneejerkingly hate Morality Rewards/Punishments in my crpgs, I wouldn't inflict them on my players in a tabletop rpg*. However if a Player wanted some sort of "score" to represent or track their "descent into the Dark Side"** then I'd probably just use the rules as presented and drop the "gain" portion. They could only lose or stay level (unless they wanted to redeem themselves, then I'd have to create something).

Hmmm. I could see myself modifying a Belief System from Vampire as well. That could almost work. Almost.

* Which is a different situation than D&D Paladins and Alignment restrictions, which I'm actually fine with. In as much as I hate D&D and Alignments in general.

*Which is very much a genre trope, so if a player wants to explore that story, okay by me.