Morality System - "Roleplay Policing"

By Ebak, in General Discussion

I think when it comes down to it, a GM needs to determine if Morality is proper for the players/setting/desired experience. Morality is not going to work well or do much for an Edge of the Empire system where everyone is morally ambiguous anyway.

I'd like to try the system because what I see is a way to bring players closer in line with the players they've constructed. Player decisions have more of an impact under this mechanic than in Duty or Obligation.

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.

They'll be switching between the two all the time. We're having Light=Order, Dark=Chaos, so neither side is good or evil and switching won't involve any 'fall to the dark side'.

I'm fortunate enough not to have players who will try and 'game' it, anyway. They know I reward them for playing properly, and I anticipate the Light/Dark shifts will occur when dramatically appropriate, not when it gives them a dice advantage.

The Jedi are the adversaries in our F&D game; very much not the 'good guys' and more like the samurai you describe.

Edit: Whoops, posted in the wrong thread. Please disregard!

Edited by Yoshiyahu

Morality, I just can't put my mind around it.

Luke or Anikan take forever to turn to the dark side dispite constantly being tempted by Palpatine. On the otherhand Anikans redemption happens almost in one scene, he saves his son and goes from 0 to 70 right then and there.

As a player I should be deciding during character creation if I am playing a Jedi or Sith, if I am going to fall over time or not, but my actions should be driven by that choice, not that choice being determined by my actions.

I'm fortunate enough not to have players who will try and 'game' it...

I've got a Munchkin in my group, but he is leaving for England in October so he won't be causing much havok.

The Jedi are the adversaries in our F&D game; very much not the 'good guys' and more like the samurai you describe.

Morality, I just can't put my mind around it.

Luke or Anikan take forever to turn to the dark side dispite constantly being tempted by Palpatine. On the otherhand Anikans redemption happens almost in one scene, he saves his son and goes from 0 to 70 right then and there.

As a player I should be deciding during character creation if I am playing a Jedi or Sith, if I am going to fall over time or not, but my actions should be driven by that choice, not that choice being determined by my actions.

Who says that Anakin had 0 Morality during the fight with Luke. As the rules stand you still count as Dark side until you go above 70, and he had been acting in some less extreme ways for example acting with some remorse to Luke when he collected him on Endor. It is theoretically possible that his Morality could increase to over 70 if it was activated that session with a decent roll. There may have even been a special bonus given that he died saving his son by destroying the Emperor and achieving his destiny,

E

So what did we ever see Vador do on screen that would suggest he was anything but a Sith Lord? Watch YouTube videos of kittens? :P

Anakin repented because it was part of a plot in a 2 hour movie, not the culmination of hours of game-play. This is a game based on a series of movies and such, not an exact interpretation. Besides, who's to say the GM didn't decide to remove a bunch of conflict or hand out light side (or however it works) due to good role-playing and self sacrifice on the part of the player?

Vader was just a Mary Sue NPC anyway...

Vader was just a Mary Sue NPC anyway...

/spit-take

Mara Jade, meet Evileeyore. Evileeyore, may I introduce you to Mara Jade Skywalker...

I kinda liked MJ before they hooked her up with the canon characters.

And I absolutely loved Vader and Fett before the excerable prequels.

Vader wasn't a Mary Sue; Anakin was.

The prequels were atrocities and obscenities on so many levels, but the worst crime was making Darth Vader uncool. We simply didn't need to see: 'Darth Vader: The Awkward Spotty Teenage Angst Years'.

Edited by Maelora

Mara Jade, meet Evileeyore. Evileeyore, may I introduce you to Mara Jade Skywalker...

There are reasons I tend to ignore the EU... though it was throwing a Moon at Chewie that is the biggest one (and "No, no, your fleet? Not in my sky!").

We simply didn't need to see: 'Darth Vader: The Awkward Spotty Whiny Teenage Angst Years'.

I both agree and added my biggest gripe about Little Orphan Ani...

Edited by evileeyore

Morality, I just can't put my mind around it.

Luke or Anikan take forever to turn to the dark side dispite constantly being tempted by Palpatine. On the otherhand Anikans redemption happens almost in one scene, he saves his son and goes from 0 to 70 right then and there.

As a player I should be deciding during character creation if I am playing a Jedi or Sith, if I am going to fall over time or not, but my actions should be driven by that choice, not that choice being determined by my actions.

This was brought up during my game with one of the FFG devs. The table agreed that Anakin's "redemption" could have reflected a growth into the 70+ morality zone, or more likely it was a plot resolution. No need to bring mechanics into every movie scene.

GMs should know when to wave mechanics and just focus on the scene or story.

Edited by kaosoe

GMs should know when to wave mechanics and just focus on the scene or story.

The trouble I am having with this is the mechanics can very easily take away the focus of the story.

The players over arcing code of morality should be a character creation choice, when playing the game that players choices should be made with that original choice in mind. Both the player and the GM should know where the character is heading in a general sense.

The morality system may highlight quickly a player who isn't playing as per the character creation choice, but there I think the GM should hand wave on the mechanics and do his job as a GM.

Amanal, in that last sentence you may have answered your own question.

My advice to you if you still want to use Morality. Pick their morality score for them and just make notes when the characters achieve conflict. Do all the bookkeeping work for them. Give the players hint on how his "morality" is affecting the world. And should he fall you can try and weave it without him realizing until that fateful day when you say "oh. if you want to use lightside points, you'll have to burn strain and flip a destiny point. But those darkside points are free for the taking. Go ahead."

It's a weird solution but it sounds fun to me.

@ Maelora: I am interested in hearing more re: the mechanics of " engaging " the Morality...?

As for " making Vader uncool "... don't you remember that one Essential Guide to Warfare 's take on who Vader was before the infamous " Force-choking happy terror of the Imperial military " characterization by WEG? That if anything his Episode IV incarnation was cagey, isolated, defensive, and if anything trying to ride Tarkin's coattails back to power...? ;)

Both the players who will be in my campaign are stoked about my "it's a cross between Sengoku-jidai and Meiji Era Japan than anything else" campaign (the idea being most Jedi are dead or driven out of the core, leaving wandering "Ronin", Sith Warlords, the occasional Imperial Governor, and Gangsters as the power bases the further you get from Edo... err... Coruscant).

" Don't think that the government doesn't know what the Sith have been up to in the world of Force-wielders ."

" Of course, official -- but this is a matter for Force-wielders and doesn't concern the government ."

" I understand this. Why else do you think the government hasn't interfered? Don't think that we approve, we're merely turning a blind eye... so long as you are careful not to cross the boundaries between your world and ours. If the wind shifts, you'll be swallowed up by your fire, and nowhere in the galaxy could your kind call home ..."

This was brought up during my game with one of the FFG devs. The table agreed that Anakin's "redemption" could have reflected a growth into the 70+ morality zone, or more likely it was a plot resolution. No need to bring mechanics into every movie scene.

GMs should know when to wave mechanics and just focus on the scene or story.

imagine only ;) Edited by Chortles

Somehow I've just imagined this exchange:

" Don't think that the government doesn't know what the Sith have been up to in the world of Force-wielders ."

" Of course, official -- but this is a matter for Force-wielders and doesn't concern the government ."

" I understand this. Why else do you think the government hasn't interfered? Don't think that we approve, we're merely turning a blind eye... so long as you are careful not to cross the boundaries between your world and ours. If the wind shifts, you'll be swallowed up by your fire, and nowhere in the galaxy could your kind call home ..."

Oh very much so...

Actually, they both expect at least one session to play out exactly like Yojimbo .

@evileeyore ...ok i can see a number of your points along this argument but I have to ask where you claim the falling line is with the DS LS Neg/Plus argument in the case of the POWERS. Id have to say that after a point being LS is nice and all but...outside of move(which is seriuously broken), There are a number of downsides to both DS and LS when you start looking at the powers. Some of them Right out wont let you use certain Pips at all. Others wont let you do particular things with LS pips and other things with DS pips.Heck Bind even gives you more options when it comes to being DS and useing the fun little black dots. When it comes down to it all i can see my players doing with this system is "Welp my guy has a stealing issue...and is an angry cuss...guess im DSing it kuukuukuu" or "LS all the way!" And then RPing it that way.

Though there is also the interaction of conflict with DS pips...namely that you gain one Conflict PER pip used for ANYTHING. As well as conflict for failing fear checks...so really? Your characters are going to have to work to keep that lightside score if your dming right and dont want them to be all pargon.

As to the ORIGONAL posters question...I'm only applying Morality to my Force Point holding players. And then if someone else in the group decides to toss off into a FP career then I'll likely just set them back at 50 unless they were some kind of sociopathic nut job during the lead up...or they gained the force career from a Dark Sith/Holocron/Sith Ghost or some other story reasion.

That way if the player starts going into old EotE habbits, or gets a little to violent i cant point out where hes heading with some in game force mumbo jumbo and let him decide if thats what he wants. After that its up to the player. Main reasion for this is simple...we dont apply Obligation to our AoR characters, (Unless they bail of the Rebilion and then the obligation is something suiting.) and we dont apply Duty to our AoR characters, (even if they are helping the rebelion...since they are most likely doing it for the creds.) That way we dont have a retarded amount of tracking and conflicting objectives for the same player to keep track of...and i really have no interest in tracking Obligation, Duty, AND morality for each character...thats just way to much wasted time and effort. After all thats 3 seperate rolls at the begining of each sesion to decide what options are availible to help their, Duty/Obligation/Morality triggers, and then having to modify each session to have those possabilities? no thank you. One mechanic each for non-jedi and 2 for jedi is all im going to put up with thanks.

Main reasion for this is simple...we dont apply Obligation to our AoR characters, (Unless they bail of the Rebilion and then the obligation is something suiting.) and we dont apply Duty to our AoR characters, (even if they are helping the rebelion...since they are most likely doing it for the creds.) That way we dont have a retarded amount of tracking and conflicting objectives for the same player to keep track of...and i really have no interest in tracking Obligation, Duty, AND morality for each character...thats just way to much wasted time and effort. After all thats 3 seperate rolls at the begining of each sesion to decide what options are availible to help their, Duty/Obligation/Morality triggers, and then having to modify each session to have those possabilities? no thank you. One mechanic each for non-jedi and 2 for jedi is all im going to put up with thanks.

I've actually loved combining Obligation and Duty. It makes for much more rounded character types, and though I'm only so-so on the mechanical aspect of the Obligation and Duty rolls, having them written on the character's sheet is a great way to get the players committed to those decisions. Hell, when my Rebellion players manage to pay off their own Obligations, they take Dutybound as a minimal Obligation in order to allow them to accrue Duty.

My problem with Morality is that, no matter how I look at it, I can't seem to figure out the best way to integrate it with the other mechanics. I can totally see a Force user having Obligation or Duty, but trying to force Morality on a Smuggler or an Ace? It doesn't fit, but it should , because all the FFG games are supposed to be cross-compatible. And I can't accept that my players who have been playing for dozens of sessions have the same neutral Morality as a starting character.

I don't want to have to keep track of Morality scores in secret. That feels like too much of a cheat. Probably the better option would be to track the value of certain actions in private, and just tell everyone at the end of the session how much their score has increased or decreased without justifying it too much.

The apparent irreconcilable mechanics bothers me, but I keep reminding myself that it's a beta. It's pretty close to the finished product, but it's not there yet, and there may be a section in either the beta's errata or the CRB itself describing how to make all three mechanics work together. They did that for AoR at the end, too. But for now, I'm not allowing my group to use anything from FaD, since I'm still adamant about the "No Jedi" policy.

My problem with Morality is that, no matter how I look at it, I can't seem to figure out the best way to integrate it with the other mechanics. I can totally see a Force user having Obligation or Duty, but trying to force Morality on a Smuggler or an Ace? It doesn't fit, but it should , because all the FFG games are supposed to be cross-compatible.

Well, mechanically, it does -- it's just another subsystem that's completely orthogonal to everything else. That doesn't mean it's going to fit thematically. I've argued that tracking Morality (or whatever it ends up being called) for mundane is pointless. The primary effect of Morality is to describe one's connection to the hidden world of the supernatural , while mundanes are saddled with debts and responsibilites.

My problem with Morality is that, no matter how I look at it, I can't seem to figure out the best way to integrate it with the other mechanics. I can totally see a Force user having Obligation or Duty, but trying to force Morality on a Smuggler or an Ace? It doesn't fit, but it should , because all the FFG games are supposed to be cross-compatible.

Well, mechanically, it does -- it's just another subsystem that's completely orthogonal to everything else. That doesn't mean it's going to fit thematically. I've argued that tracking Morality (or whatever it ends up being called) for mundane is pointless. The primary effect of Morality is to describe one's connection to the hidden world of the supernatural , while mundanes are saddled with debts and responsibilites.

Right, and thematically it doesn't seem fair that the Smuggler has debt to pay off, the Ace never gets a vacation, but the Consular just has to remember not to shoot the puppy.

the Consular just has to remember not to shoot the puppy.

Your GM is going way too easy on you: substitute puppy with man who sold your family out to the Imperials.

Edited by Lorne

Not having read the entire thread I just wanna add my two cents:

Yes, I agree that its a bit weird to have a mechanic tell you what to do, but since you are playing a Force User and your actions have rule-changing in game effects it's kinda necessary.

Don't like it? Use it differently, try it the way you can make it work and share your experience with this forum to help others. ESPECIALLY because this isn't the greatest Rulebook in the wo-orld. No. This is a Beta.

Yes, I agree that its a bit weird to have a mechanic tell you what to do

Again, the Morality mechanic does not tell you what to do. It doesn't tell you when to brush your teeth, what kind of speeder to buy or who to vote for. All the mehcanic tries to do is keep a moral accounting of your PC's past actions and manifest them in the metaphysics of the Force (mostly, what color pips to use).

Yes but if I don't brush my teeth regularly I lose a lot of strain to toothache and will participate quite less in the game while being an unconscious strainfilled PC, so yes, it kinda does . That's all I was saying wanted to say, sorry for being unclear.

Your mother can't (if you really look at it) REALLY force you to brush your teeth or eat your greens; as long she doesn't literally hold a gun to your head; (and even then one can argue the element of choice is not completely negated) but hey, guess what, mine did anyways, disregarding the hard semantic meaning of the word "forcing".

Let's not argue over the semantic of what "telling you what to do" means, because as you can clearly see: it's kinda pointless :) . Some people view it as being told what to do, others don't depending on one's definition of when they feel like being told what to do. Additionally the problem itself in turn is massively inflated due to english being a second language to most of the world, again blurring ones definitions.

Again, haven't read the whole thread, and I'm not opposed to the rule.

ed: Ps: sry, that came out longer and way more condescending than it was supposed to sound. Please read it in a very tongue-in-cheek-y manner.

Edited by derroehre