I'm looking at putting together a big dueling themed game with the new melee rules coming out in Force and Destiny.

A lot of the focus is going to be on the honor and reputation of different houses.

At some point the local law is going to outlaw street dueling, which I imagine to be the may way honor disputes are handled.

So I need a solid honor mechanic to:

1. Track how the players are doing

2. Give enough incentive to make a choice to make between taking the insult and risking retribution from the authorities hard

Has anyone been playing around with something like that? Is it even something that should be represented mechanically or just take very careful pains to have everyone on the same page what is expected role-playing?

This is basically what the Morality mechanic is that was introduced in Force and Destiny. This is why I am confused why people for some reason think that it doesn't apply to non force users.

Morality is more good/bad. Honor in my mind for this is different. You'd gain honor by killing a skilled opponent in a duel, somehow undertaking a mission to strengthen your house or just by uttering a particularly clever barb against a rival, lose it by shooting someone in the back, or letting someone insult you unchallenged, things like that. The game would be based roughly on the early scenes of Romeo and Juliet when they bicker back and forth about whether they'd lose face by not responding to some taunts and whether it was worth drawing and breaking the law to defend their honor.

One of the definitions of Honor is allegiance to moral principles. So my comment still stands.

Just modify what adds conflict and the Morality mechanic requires no other modification to fit your needs.

I also recommend a hijack of the Morality mechanic. Here's three easy steps:

1. Replace "Morality" with "Honor"

2. Replace "Conflict" with "Shame"

3. Roleplay and adjudicate accordingly.

My 'Absolution' group can tell you how I incentivize them to keep their noses clean.

They roll up into a new city and find a full squad of Stormtroopers, four squads of Gamorrean thugs, and several Gamorrean brutes. The rival level Gamorrean.

They've taken efforts to keep things... quiet.

Actually Morality is pretty bad fit. It would end with PCs gaining Honor for sitting around or "just not failing". Honor should only be gained for actually doing Honorable things.

Personally I'd take a long look at the Honor rules in L5R if you want some sort of "mechanics".

Evil, I assume you don't understand the comment Awayput stated.

When you change the conflict section to Shame, you then can put anything in the "what causes shame" list.

Like "not doing anything honorable for X amount of time"

But then again if you ignore that, Honor would still go up by doing nothing. That is when a "good" man becomes a "legend". and Legend is far more honorable.

The bad stuff Wyatt Earp did are 100% overshadowed by all the awesome he did, because he was Wyatt Earp. Did it matter that at times, for weeks at a time he didn't catch a bandit? nope, because he was still a sheriff.

You want to use "wild west" type thinking with honor before the rule of law, sure go for it, but learn what really happened in the west and you will see you are applying a very modern and backwards understanding to events.

In fact you pointing out that Morality shouldn't be the case, actually brought forth a reason why there is nothing but Morality that fits, so thank you for your hatred for a wonderful mechanic. =)

Evil, I assume you don't understand the comment Awayput stated.

When you change the conflict section to Shame, you then can put anything in the "what causes shame" list.

An person seen as Honorable (one whom has done many Honorable things and has built up a high "Honor Rating" in system) shouldn't be losing Honor for taking a few days off from the public eye.

That sort of thing is best used for a Fame mechanic, as it best represents "And what have you done lately".

But then again if you ignore that, Honor would still go up by doing nothing. That is when a "good" man becomes a "legend". and Legend is far more honorable.

Yes, this can be addressed by the GM throwing opportunities to "do good" in the path of the PCs. But that's now relying on the GM to fix a broken system mechanic.

The bad stuff Wyatt Earp did are 100% overshadowed by all the awesome he did, because he was Wyatt Earp. Did it matter that at times, for weeks at a time he didn't catch a bandit? nope, because he was still a sheriff.

If the character Wyatt Earp goes several weeks not catching bandits or assassinating thugs, his Honor should remain stationary. Morality/Honor/Whatever should only climb or descend from the character's actions, not some random number generator.

You want to use "wild west" type thinking with honor before the rule of law, sure go for it, but learn what really happened in the west and you will see you are applying a very modern and backwards understanding to events.

In fact you pointing out that Morality shouldn't be the case, actually brought forth a reason why there is nothing but Morality that fits, so thank you for your hatred for a wonderful mechanic. =)

I don't hate the Morality mechanic. It does what it does, very well, which is cause average joe PCs to slowly and steadily gain in Morality. Truly despicable sorts will slowly (or rapidly depending on how 'vile' their actions and how (un)lucky the rolls) descend and become Paragons of the Dark Side. That's all it does.

I do think it is meant as a bit of a "punishment/reward" system for controlling PC's actions, which I disagree with in principle, but I don't hate the mechanic.

Will I use it in my game? No. It doesn't do what I need it to do, to wit: "Properly" model a character's "descent" into the Dark Side, the physical corruption, the emotional and mental corruption, the seduction* of the Dark Side, etc.

* Okay, I'll grant switching to using Dark Side pips might be "just right" in terms of "mechanical seduction" methods. I certainly haven't come up with anything better.

(leaving out the the stuff about Light Side and Dark Side because I think this is a really fascinating topic that I would hate to see sidetracked by yet another Morality discussion!)

@ Evileeyore, if the PCs sat around doing nothing, there's no reason to play and thus no reason to gain honor. It's really up to the GM to engage apathetic players in Honorable/Dishonorable situations. If they fail to act, people think less of them, and this adds to their Shame modifier.

But okay, if you don't like that, what about a hybrid between Morality and Duty? Per Duty: Only increase "Honor" when your character performs something worthy of an Honor increase (no increases from the d10 roll), but still use your Shame modifier and roll a d10 to see if your Honor score goes down at the end of a session because of something shameful you did.

If your Honor score drops below 30, you are a Dishonorable Schmuck. If your Honor goes higher than 70, you are an Honorable Gentleman. /Lady.

Ok you win all bow to evil only his opinions matter. Thank you oh wise one for taking the time to bestow us with your graces.

(If you can't see the sarcasm there I am sure you fail at internet.)

Enough of dealing with the Troll. The comments still stand well with their merits. Morality = Honor = easy peasy

So awayputurwpn you're thinking autobump up for positive things and give a roll at the end of the session for the net dishonorable actions and slander with no possible increase at the end? Makes a degree of sense, as it also reflects that sometimes you may have done something but maybe everyone hasn't heard about the subterfuge you engaged in, so it doesn't hurt your house.

So awayputurwpn you're thinking autobump up for positive things and give a roll at the end of the session for the net dishonorable actions and slander with no possible increase at the end? Makes a degree of sense, as it also reflects that sometimes you may have done something but maybe everyone hasn't heard about the subterfuge you engaged in, so it doesn't hurt your house.

Why is it an auto bump? why as a GM did you not put in things to challenge their honor? I mean really? If you are not challenging someones honor in every game session why do you care about having an honor mechanic?

I thought his idea was positive things during the session make the number go up without a roll required, and the roll at the end of the session can only go down. So good things generate honor right to your score immediately, shame accumulates and you roll it like conflict at the end and subtract it out of honor if necessary.

I'm inclined to take out the roll entirely and just have things go up or down as it happens, like reputation or morality in video games but I'm not sold on anything.

Here is the problem with the "honor" mechanic you want. Here is why I like morality versus a mixed version of it even. I withdrawn my enjoyment of the modifying the Morality mechanic to a new name.

If you wanted to apply it to real life, here are some examples:

First example, building on my Wyatt Earp example from before, How long after the OK Corral incident did whatever his involvement affect his reputation? never? What about when he went on his crusade against the outlaws from that fight? again they didn't seem to care he gunned them down.

Second example, Ray Rice. When the news first broke there were limited details, but "some" people didn't like him. But his reputation as a football player made most people ignore that (basically his "honor" as a football player was pretty high). The second time the incident was brought up with the real details, he was instantly reviled as the jerk he is (basically he went from a high number, to ZERO) try role playing that kind of shift..

Third Example, Michael Jordan, revered to this day as honorable (aka really super high honor). But I happen to remember 1 incident where his arrogance shined through and it was the final seconds of the first game of the finals one year. The game was versus the Utah Jazz and the Bulls were down by 3. Jordan was under the basket (aka he could at best score 2 and lose the game) and Scottie pippen was far enough out that his perfect 3 point shot ended the game in a tie and sent it to overtime. On the way to the bench to discuss how to handle overtime, Michael Jordan yelled at Scottie "why didn't you pass it to me?".

That was a dishonorable action that in the mind of most meant nothing. To me it showed his whole reputation as honorable was a lie. So to some, he was and still is, a high honor. To me, he is a zero.

How do those 3 actions represent in a game scenario? they don't.

With Morality, there are clearly defined points of "conflict". Dishonest actions can lower morality. Being a jerk could be represented by a conflict point (it doesn't have to though).

Whenever I see people trying to hack together a homebrew idea, I get excited. When I see they don't apply the ideas to a real life scenario and see how it breaks down, I feel sad.

How can you justify the new mechanic when with 3 real life examples it fails rather quickly?

TL;DR, The best way to design a homebrew idea starts with visualizing how you could apply it to real life, after that dice rolls/bookkeeping are easy.

First example, building on my Wyatt Earp example from before, How long after the OK Corral incident did whatever his involvement affect his reputation? never?

He was charged four days after the incident. Though the judge dropped the charges (the evidence was shaky, witnesses had conflicting stories, the Earps hired a slick lawyer, the usual), Tombstone residents stopped trusting the Earps. Not just Wyatt, but his brother too.

Granted a large portion of the town were in the pockets of his enemies.

What about when he went on his crusade against the outlaws from that fight? again they didn't seem to care he gunned them down.

You know what saved Wyatt's bacon in the days immediately following all that? His friendships with other US Marshalls, particularly Bat Masterson (who was a bit a heel himself at times) and that frontier jurisdiction stopped at territorial lines. So when he moved to the Colorado territories those warrants had no power.

How do those 3 actions represent in a game scenario? they don't.

With Morality, there are clearly defined points of "conflict". Dishonest actions can lower morality. Being a jerk could be represented by a conflict point (it doesn't have to though).

Back on topic:

Personally I'd just add Honor for them performing Honorably and subtract for them performing Dishonorably. Drop the dice roll, it's clunky and prone to lead to fail states (like someone consistently being mildly Dishonorable but still slowly gaining Honor because the average roll on a d10 is 5.5).

So Evil's whole comment can be boiled down to the same trolling as every thread he participates in. Thank you once again for your wonderful wisdom.

I hope the OP gets some usefulness out of another derailed topic.

I thought his idea was positive things during the session make the number go up without a roll required, and the roll at the end of the session can only go down. So good things generate honor right to your score immediately, shame accumulates and you roll it like conflict at the end and subtract it out of honor if necessary.

I'm inclined to take out the roll entirely and just have things go up or down as it happens, like reputation or morality in video games but I'm not sold on anything.

where does it say that? All I have seen in the morality system is you collect conflict during the session and at the end roll a d10 and compare the results and do what ever the results say.

I thought his idea was positive things during the session make the number go up without a roll required, and the roll at the end of the session can only go down. So good things generate honor right to your score immediately, shame accumulates and you roll it like conflict at the end and subtract it out of honor if necessary.

Not quite. In my "B" suggestion, Honor would accumulate at the end of a session as an award, just like Duty in Age of Rebellion.

I thought his idea was positive things during the session make the number go up without a roll required, and the roll at the end of the session can only go down. So good things generate honor right to your score immediately, shame accumulates and you roll it like conflict at the end and subtract it out of honor if necessary.

I'm inclined to take out the roll entirely and just have things go up or down as it happens, like reputation or morality in video games but I'm not sold on anything.

where does it say that? All I have seen in the morality system is you collect conflict during the session and at the end roll a d10 and compare the results and do what ever the results say.

It doesn't say that in any book, nor does the book mention losing points in anything because someone bit their thumb at you (or flipped you the bird, of you'd like a more contemporary example), which is why I'm working on this. I'm trying to reflect the cultural environment that lead to honor based feuding and dueling, and the competition between two or more houses "both alike in dignity."

It doesn't say that in any book, nor does the book mention losing points in anything because someone bit their thumb at you (or flipped you the bird, of you'd like a more contemporary example), which is why I'm working on this. I'm trying to reflect the cultural environment that lead to honor based feuding and dueling, and the competition between two or more houses "both alike in dignity."

Clarification:

The d10 roll in my "A" suggestion (just run it like Morality) would be representative of how the word of your Honorable (or Dishonorable) deeds spread.

In my "B" suggestion (Morality/Duty hybrid) the d10 would only potentially contribute to dishonor, since it can only mitigate your Shame, while "Honorable" actions can contribute to your Honor score at the session's end, like Duty in AoR.

In either case, the Shame mechanic would be taken into account just like Conflict, but the difference is that only "shameful" things would increase your Shame modifier, not necessarily "dark side" things. So refusing a duel invitation, while that would likely be a "light side" act, would actually increase your Shame. And killing a ruffian for dishonoring your wife would potentially result in an Honor increase (either by d10 roll or by end-of-session auto-award).

Honor and Shame are very much an external thing and rely greatly on other people's perception of you and even of your family/clan, but they still fit pretty nicely into the Morality mechanic, even with the re-skinned Paragon/Dark-Sider rules.