All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

This is a quote that is regularly attributed to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, but history is unclear on whether or not he ever said exactly these words.

I'm mostly good with the Morality system, but like evileeyore pointed out:

By "evil" I mean 1-4 Conflict per session and nice pace being "average of +1 Morality per session". So Qui-Jon slowly moves towards "Paragon of the Light" even if he's consistently shady.

This is, in my personal opinion, a major flaw. It actively encourages players to commit minor acts of evil in order to increase their morality rating. A single Dark side pip used to fuel a power gives 1 Conflict, which means a 90% chance to gain 1-9 Morality at the end of a session. Without having done a single "good" thing.

If FFG doesn't change the Morality mechanic to plug this hole I'll simply houserule the following: You only roll a D10 at the end of a session where the player in question has engaged his morality through his emotional strength or weakness. If he doesn't, Conflict keeps building until he does, which means he could end up with a pretty high number. Not only will this prevent the "little dribbles of evil makes me a paragon of goodness"-loophole, but it also encourages players to play their characters according to the emotional strengths and weaknesses they've picked for themselves.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

This is a quote that is regularly attributed to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, but history is unclear on whether or not he ever said exactly these words.

Pretty sure it was Gen. Vargas, Desert Ranger, 2100 AD.

It totally was. I saw that quote only this morning.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

This is a quote that is regularly attributed to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, but history is unclear on whether or not he ever said exactly these words.

Pretty sure it was Gen. Vargas, Desert Ranger, 2100 AD.

It totally was. I saw that quote only this morning.

I see nothing in the rules that make you do certain things.

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

You've apparently missed both the title and the entire content of this thread. Please try again later.

It's more of just that Morality is sort of necessary because while some groups are fine and able to agree with "well, you did a lot of wrong recently, so you're a darksider now", for many groups it'll become a difficult thing that'll bring about arguing.

I can't really grasp why such a group would want to play this version of the Star Wars game to begin with, though. I can't fathom how one expects to make this game work without being able to handle narratively-based rulings.

Well, whatever. You may have a point there. I still don't think its worth those pages. And I know I'd be disappointed if they insisted on maintaining morality as the only defining drive of Force Users in the final version. They could easily remove it from character creation, allowing something that reflects the concept behind Obligation and Duty better and add it to an "optional rules" section somewhere at the cost of 2 pages of fluff.

Played through the first Morality trigger in my game tonight. The encounter that I set up was the party was in a shop when 2 thugs came in and started attempting to intimidate the store owners into paying their protection money. The Force user in the group took his cue and (His Morality is Justice and Cruelty) attempted to make the thugs leave, and stop the store owner from paying up. This lead to some well played roleplaying, and ultimately, the big goon attempted to plant his vibroaxe in the Bounty-Hunter's face (who, while the Force user was attempting to parley with the other thug, was trying to entice the big guy into doing exactly what he did). The Force user drew his saber (stating that he wanted to lop off the guy's arm, then rolled the crit to do so). The big guy hit the Bounty hunter once with his axe before being turned to hamburger by the hunter's autofire. (Want a broken mechanic, lets talk about 8 autofire hits). Now through the evening the Force user accumulated 4 conflict and at the end of the evening rolled a 6 on the d10, gaining 4 Morality. The player explained at the end of the evening, He may have done some questionable things through the evening, but by doing the morally just thing by helping the shop owner, his character felt good about himself and his actions overall.

I do have to explain, in my game if a player doesn't narrate a dice roll (including the end morality roll) the roll never took place and he lost whatever benefit (or turn if in combat or something similar) he had.

I think the difference between the systems is scale. All three include motivation but Morality is on a micro scale where the other two are macro. Obligation and duty are more what you do and morality is a bit more how do you do it. Yes, many groups don't need a chart for their character being angry or proud or such, but it also helps many. As to the conflict rules I think it does okay at causing a little bit of thought and reinforcement, especially given the universe. Violence makes more violence easier, but if you want to stay good you'll work to avoid it. But I think the main issue is that the morality motivation really only kicks in once you've started adventuring which can be a bit of an issue depending on your hooks, it does work nicely in a mixed game though.

The Force user in the group took his cue and (His Morality is Justice and Cruelty) attempted to make the thugs leave, and stop the store owner from paying up....

I don't quite see eye to eye with your assessment of conflict exactly. Sure the Force user didn't exactly resort to violence as his first course of action, but he used the Bounty Hunters actions to bully the thug and to goad the thug into violence. He then went directly from trying to prevent an injustice to allowing a murder to take place and completely over reacting and going to town on his own thug.

I just don't see two dead bodies in the shop keepers shop is going to be any great help to the shop keeper.

The end count as I see it is two deaths that the Force user was involved with that he could have prevented and further problems for the Store Keeper. Based on the players roll I would have been looking at a new morality of 40 or so, not 52.

The Force user in the group took his cue and (His Morality is Justice and Cruelty) attempted to make the thugs leave, and stop the store owner from paying up....

I don't quite see eye to eye with your assessment of conflict exactly.

Doesn't seem hugely germane to the topic though. Outside of the part where, yeah, having re-read the mechanics its not actually any more objective than just discussing it.

I see nothing in the rules that make you do certain things.

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

Frankly I see a lot of those whining about it being the type who want to do what ever they want and to not have consequences for those actions.

You've apparently missed both the title and the entire content of this thread. Please try again later.

I have read the whole thread. You have failed to make your point or back it up. Morality is supposed to measure where your character stands. If your character wants to be good they need to follow the rules. There are consequences for not doing so because in the star wars universe your morality has actual effects on how the force behaves with your character.

I have read the whole thread. You have failed to make your point or back it up. Morality is supposed to measure where your character stands. If your character wants to be good they need to follow the rules. There are consequences for not doing so because in the star wars universe your morality has actual effects on how the force behaves with your character.

Clearly you have not because this has nothing to do with my point.

What I'd propose instead is something like Destiny. It seems like most of the Jedi (and many of the supporting characters) in canon and EU have some sort of destiny that they're expected to fulfill (either by their peers or by the reading audience). So, what if your character actually has a real destiny; or at least thinks she does? There's plenty of potential in-game reasons for this, such as internal motivation, Force visions, familial/peer expectations, etc. Choosing a destiny has 3 factors as I see it. I'm not a game designer myself so I'll just outline some rough ideas.

• In one part, you choose what your destiny is. This could potentially be short term (fall to the Dark Side) or long term (found a new Force Order), small scale (uncover force sensitive children) or large scale (bring balance to the Force). Subject to narrator approval, of course.
• Once the destiny has been chosen, you need to decide whether your character is embracing or fleeing this destiny. Some players might consider that their character falling to the Dark Side is a bad thing. Others might feel their characters would find it liberating.
• Finally there's the issue of how strong your destiny is. This isn't intended to force your character into a particular course of action, but rather like the O/D motivation mechanics it would determine how often opportunities to interact with this destiny come up. For instance a character who's Destiny is to become the next Dark Lord of the Sith and has a strong tie to his Destiny will be frequently faced with circumstances that require him to make decisions of morality or to use the force. If the character is fleeing their Destiny would then choose to do what they can to avoid doing the obvious thing (earning the money to buy the MacGuffin), while a character who embraces his Destiny will likely do the obvious thing despite any obvious cost (stealing the MacGuffin, even though it will almost certainly mean a new bounty).

So you'd end up with a table like the ones for O/D with multiple subcategories intended to be tailored by the player into something specific to their character. Depending on what seems best to those with more knowledge than I, the character could either select a positive (pursuing) and negative (fleeing) Destiny - you'll either bring balance to the Force or destroy the galaxy - or simply assign a polarity. Once that's been decided on the character can decrease the connection to a positive destiny or increase the connection to a negative destiny, much like one does with O/D. The character could then increase their connection to their destiny (by making choices that lead toward it) or decrease it (by making choices that lead away from it). At some point the character would either achieve their Destiny or reduce their connection below the minimum threshold (realize that it isn't their true destiny, after all) and choose a new one at the minimum connection level.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mechanical problem with Morality is that it interferes with the narrative rather than aiding it. Giving a bonus for being a Light Side Paragon gives people a reason to stick to good deeds. Likewise, applying a penalty to Dark Side extremes gives people a reason to stay away from "immoral" acts. While we generally think of these as good things for the heroes to do anyway, the problem is that it makes certain choices more appealing without any sort of player input . In other words, it removes player agency.

When AoR was in beta I was thinking that Destiny would be the FaD version of Obligation/Duty so I can see what you are thinking but at this point I would rather not change the Morality mechanic, yet at least. Until I have had a chance to run FaD and see how it runs I can only assume that it runs the way it looks which I quite like. In actual fact I prefer the Morality mechanic to the other two as I find them sometimes a bit too Meta (roll number on table and deduct strain from players). I understand that there is more to them, but as written I think they lack something. If I use them I would be more inclined to pre-roll and use what I roll to design the scenario ahead of time, rather than roll at session start. As to your Destiny suggestion I have to be brutally honest and say I wouldn't like to see that in the Core book. I think Destiny, the way you have envisioned it would be far to rigid to work within a roleplaying situation, though fair-play to you if it works with your group. Hopefully I will be able to play-test FaD soon and have a far better idea of what does and doesn't work for us.

I do see what a lot of people have been saying with regard to Dark Siders seeming to be penalized and largely this is how the movies seem to show the Dark side. You have a greater chance of getting Dark side points than Light since more sides have Dark, but with the Strain cost and the Destiny point and now adding the Conflict, there is not much incentive for the Player to go that way so most Force user's will stay Light for the most part. This may change with Morality and the tracking of Conflict (a mechanic I like so far), but I would suggest a way of making using Dark Side Points more attractive. My suggestion is to remove the strain cost from using Dark side points as a Light sider (since the Dark side is supposed to be quicker, easier and more seductive; something that flipping a Destiny Point and spending strain equaling the Dark Side points spent does not model well), and having the cost primarily Conflict. The Destiny Point I might leave, though again that is something which might dissuade a Player from calling on the Dark side. I would however leave the cost as written for a Dark side using the Light. Just a thought.

E

If I use them I would be more inclined to pre-roll and use what I roll to design the scenario ahead of time, rather than roll at session start.

As to your Destiny suggestion I have to be brutally honest and say I wouldn't like to see that in the Core book. I think Destiny, the way you have envisioned it would be far to rigid to work within a roleplaying situation[....]

My feeling is a GM should preroll the duty and the Obligation and then fit that into what they already planned for the session or think on it as the make whatever loose framework of a plan they use for the session. Even if it is a OK so and sos obligation was rolled so I will create this encounter and slip it in wherever it fits in during the session.

Thought of the "God, why am I up this late!" O/D (and Destiny by extension) provide something for everyone. Accepting for the moment that Morality was never designed with regular folk in mind, what does it offer for folks who actually don't care about being Light Side or taking a Strain/Destiny penalty? I don't mean "Why can't they do whatever they want without consequence?" I mean what if they just say "Expletive it!" and decide to just be Dark Side. What motivations does it indicate for such a character who will no longer really feel the influence of their Strength/Weakness on their decisions?

I mean what if they just say "Expletive it!" and decide to just be Dark Side. What motivations does it indicate for such a character who will no longer really feel the influence of their Strength/Weakness on their decisions?

They make things a little harder for their group (light side to dark side point flip beginning of the session), excessive use of flashy offensive powers will draw attention to the group, and it would be an excellent time to slap on Criminal/Bounty/Whatever Obligations onto them the more careless they get.

On the flip side, they have easier access to awesome powers, and while their group may or may not be careful to step on other people's toes, they can do what they feel whenever they want.

Of course they'd also have to keep various evil actions secret from the group, or the group will start slipping to the dark side with numerous conflict points for inaction.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never played with or run a game for players that would put up with a player going against the group. They would either talk to him (IRL) or solve it in game by either expelling or violently expelling such a player (if he didn't listen). Unless, of course, it was played well and didn't infringe on the rest of the group's fun and created a good story. And the latter situation is what I think is trying to be promoted by not having severe penalties such as removal of the character because he went dark side. No set of rules can prevent douchebaggery, but I think FFG wanted a mechanic that would allow for more stories.

I think you bothed missed what I was getting at. Not "What if the character turns evil?" but what if the player just decides he just doesn't care about the consequences anymore? You make a good point about extreme bad actions having an effect on other players' morality (though I didn't mean mechanically, I meant as motivation for the character DERIVED from Morality. O/D both allow for a change of complete change of plot type within their mechanic while Morality is always about, well... morality.) This is sort of the fundamental problem with Morality in my opinion; making every story a morality is just boring. There's so many other things you could do. Anyway; that was the question. What motivations does the Morality mechanic itself leave you if you just decide it's easier to be Dark Side. After all, you can be a 0 Morality Dark Sider just because you constantly use Force Lightning; it doesn't mean you're doing anything that would make you a "douchebag" as mouthy put it.

I think you bothed missed what I was getting at. Not "What if the character turns evil?" but what if the player just decides he just doesn't care about the consequences anymore? You make a good point about extreme bad actions having an effect on other players' morality (though I didn't mean mechanically, I meant as motivation for the character DERIVED from Morality. O/D both allow for a change of complete change of plot type within their mechanic while Morality is always about, well... morality.) This is sort of the fundamental problem with Morality in my opinion; making every story a morality is just boring. There's so many other things you could do. Anyway; that was the question. What motivations does the Morality mechanic itself leave you if you just decide it's easier to be Dark Side. After all, you can be a 0 Morality Dark Sider just because you constantly use Force Lightning; it doesn't mean you're doing anything that would make you a "douchebag" as mouthy put it.

I don't think that it is about making every story a Morality tale so much as adding something (critical doesn't need to mean massive) which would allow the Force user to roleplay his emotional strength or weakness. Let us say for arguments sake that the group are delving into an ancient Sith temple and one character whose emotional strength is compassion has his Morality activated, simply by adding a moment where a Force illusion of a cave-in is thrown at the group, and they see a person trapped under a rock. If the character attempts to help then he has successfully engaged his Morality, but the Force illusion (most likely a Sith test) would probably cause him damage and/or pain for 'failing the test'. The rest of the temple could follow classic lines with traps and Force spirits or what have you, but the triggered Morality has been handled.

Taken the other way, a Sith Force user might have the Emotional Weakness Anger, and could be trying to gain landing rights for his group or Master, throw in a pedantic or greedy harbour master and if the player gives into his anger, again, he has successfully engaged his Morality but possibly cost the landing rights he sought.

Ok, if a player has decided to play Dark side, and hang the consequences, then the Morality trigger becomes less of an issue in and of itself. Until he decides that he really doesn't like what consequences actually turn up. He may be a powerful Dark sider who is capable of throwing Force Lightning and crushing his enemies at a thought, but when the Empire's Inquisitor's turn up to investigate this Force user and the rest of his group have severed ties with him because of his actions. Or when the group decide enough is enough and decide to take him out because he is becoming the enemy, he may then decide that actually redemption sounds good at which point Conflict and Morality become more relevant again.

I will say that I think that there should be some other form of reward for engaging Morality (whether the Strength, the Weakness or even both) rather than the doubled gain/loss.

Just my thoughts

E

Ok, I read your revised OP, T3CH, but I don't see any kind of mechanical output, so it's not obvious why this needs to be a mechanic. Sure, you can have numbers that go up and down, but unless they determine something mechanically, there is no point in tracking them.

Ok, I read your revised OP, T3CH, but I don't see any kind of mechanical output, so it's not obvious why this needs to be a mechanic. Sure, you can have numbers that go up and down, but unless they determine something mechanically, there is no point in tracking them.

Just a quick query concerning what if your players are playing the system by committing evil acts but relying on rolling high on that Morality die so their 1 or 2 incurred conflict should result in them regaining morality when they've done nothing to merit that.

Is there any grounds to deny them that d10 roll so they have to treat the conflict they've garnered as their penalty to their Morality since that d10 doesn't sound like its intended to function as a wild die?

Just a quick query concerning what if your players are playing the system by committing evil acts but relying on rolling high on that Morality die so their 1 or 2 incurred conflict should result in them regaining morality when they've done nothing to merit that.

1-2 Conflict is not even on "shady's" radar let alone evil.

What did they do to gain the 1-2 Conflict?

Is there any grounds to deny them that d10 roll so they have to treat the conflict they've garnered as their penalty to their Morality since that d10 doesn't sound like its intended to function as a wild die?

I'm sure there are a few posters who'll be along in moment to tell you how wrong you are for questioning the system.

If they've only incurred 1 or 2 points of conflict then I would assume that the rest of the time they were being fairly heroic. So if the roll at the end works out positively, so what?