I haven't really seen people complaining that the extreme dark side wasn't powerful enough. Did this resolve anyone's objections to the way Morality was working?

No.

...I dont think so. it was one of the earliers suggestions about the darside, but we've moved on.

People had objections?

I think the main concern was that, based on FFG's own stated purpose, the dark side was meant to have advantages as well as disadvantages, but the book seemed heavily weighted against turning to the dark side. The only real balancing point before was the ability to use the dark side points on the Force die, which come up more often but with less magnitude. I think this fix is meant to reinforce the idea that there is no "wrong" path for the players to take, especially for a system that ostensibly allows players to keep going if they become evil.

I'm with merc, I've been reading nearly every single thread on these forums, and can't remember people have any kind of objection to it. Maybe the decs wanted to play around with it to see people's reactions. I'm fine with it either way.

Sigh.

Someone did point out that taking hits to strain effectively cancelled-out a rank or two of grit, and thus the XP required to purchase them. This way, they're somewhat indemnified.

wasn't the morality comments really more directed at what Rakaydos pointed out in his thread about starting dark?

I mean, the crux of the point was that they think that starting morality, xp, and gear options are fine so they won't change. but here are the reasons.

This pretty directly addresses the thread, "morality options, starting sith, and the balance of the force"

I don't think that the comments in the update preamble were even intended to address the overall questions about the morality mechanic.

Edit: Of course, i may have misunderstood the thread title. probably talking about the bonus to WT. oh well. oops.

I don't think that the comments in the update preamble were even intended to address the overall questions about the morality mechanic.

I'm the one who brought up the XP hit for the Strain loss, and I thought it was a good balancing feature to make my players think twice before doing the actions to lose Morality. Now they get a Wound boost, that kinda cancelled my whole argument.

This is actually 100% what I thought the dark side needed.

There were indeed objections a few weeks back about how the game design was "forcing" PCs to choose Light Side. I'm surprised more people don't remember this.

The proponents of this view thought that 7 sides on a d12 and unrestrained use of Dark Side powers were not enough balance for the (I'm paraphrasing) inconceivably and irreparably great disadvantage of "losing a Destiny Point" and (again, paraphrasing) being crippled into uselessness by an entire 2-point drop in Strain.

I thought the choices were fine, and was considering a Dark Sider build in my upcoming game. Now I'm definitely doing it. I may have been on the fence a bit, waffling, but now I have a solid build concept that I want to see through to the table.

Aggressor, anyone?

The proponents of this view thought that 7 sides on a d12 and unrestrained use of Dark Side powers were not enough balance for the (I'm exaggerating ) inconceivably and irreparably great disadvantage of "losing a Destiny Point" and (again, exaggerating ) being crippled into uselessness by an entire 2-point drop in Strain.

FIFY.

There were indeed objections a few weeks back about how the game design was "forcing" PCs to choose Light Side. I'm surprised more people don't remember this.

The proponents of this view thought that 7 sides on a d12 and unrestrained use of Dark Side powers were not enough balance for the (I'm paraphrasing) inconceivably and irreparably great disadvantage of "losing a Destiny Point" and (again, paraphrasing) being crippled into uselessness by an entire 2-point drop in Strain.

Yup.

FWIW, my firm opinion is that it's incumbent upon the GM to make the Dark side real and consquential in the narrative per se; mechanics just aren't sufficient, and it's folly to expect them to do your work. The real downside of going Dark is that it should be incompatible with a heroic narrative, not that a heroic outcome should happen, but actions should have consquences in the end. If you're Dark, you'll either need to be redeemed, someone's going to put you down or this campaign is not going to, as they say, "end well." Without that distinction, black is just another color.

I haven't really seen people complaining that the extreme dark side wasn't powerful enough. Did this resolve anyone's objections to the way Morality was working?

I think the changes are more fair, but I've been viewing the Morality mechanic as "meh-plus". I think it's usable, but not inspiring.

I prefer something like this idea:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/123605-my-attempt-at-a-morality-rework-peach/

The proponents of this view thought that 7 sides on a d12 and unrestrained use of Dark Side powers were not enough balance for the (I'm exaggerating ) inconceivably and irreparably great disadvantage of "losing a Destiny Point" and (again, exaggerating ) being crippled into uselessness by an entire 2-point drop in Strain.

FIFY.

As one of the people who made this point, intentionally misrepresenting the meaning of what people say is generally called "lying" not "paraphrasing". My actual quote is as follows:

+/-2 Strain is about 15% for an average character. Flipping a destiny point is mechanically huge . (There's a reason higher level abilities require them.) And as your Force Rating increases (and you try to do bigger things with it) the fact that the Dark Side occupies more faces becomes irrelevant because there are an equal number of black and white pips. The Dark Side may be easier to access but the Light Side is more powerful.

I'd also add that this "unrestricted access" stuff is pure fancy. A lightsider is free to use Dark Side powers, too. I do happen to think that this helps balance the choice (although it seems a little silly to dock strain just to give wounds). Of course, if you read the post that came from, you'd know that "balance" is a tertiary objection to Morality for me.

Personally I think this has more to do with making the Morality mechanic more relevent to characters that are not Force-users. Only Force-users gained any real benefit if they went Dark side. At least this way now a non-Force user gains some benefit for being Dark.

I don't know if the morality mechanic should even be applied to non-force users. It seems to really only be focused on those who directly interact with the force.

Also, what the hell does FIFY mean?

Also, what the hell does FIFY mean?

EDIT: In this instance I was calling out awayputurwpn without actually calling him a liar. Mostly 'cause I couldn't remember the exact complaints but I know he was being exceedingly hyperbolic.

Ah... never seen that abbreviated. internets, they make everything... something...

Eh... nefer seee thet ebbrefeeeted. internets, zeey meke-a iferytheeng... sumetheeng...

Bork Bork Bork!

EIFM

E ncheferized I t F or M e

Anyway, on topic:

It appears the change did indeed answer a few people's complaints with the Mechanic. Good job devs!

Anyway, on topic:

It appears the change did indeed answer a few people's complaints with the Mechanic. Good job devs!

Not the majority, it seems. But at least they actually addressed a complaint people actually made. That's something.

The lightside morality choice at character generation is worth 4 sessions of angelig lightside play.

The darkside morality choice at character generation is worth 2 murders.

This imbalance is what I see as the real problem. The "quick and easy path" is not the darkside option... its extra gear and kill a few more innocent bystanders the first session. Same effect, more stuff

Darkside morality should be -30 morality at creation: instead of starting the game with extra gear/xp, you start with black force pips and an extra wound, and your friends need to roll an extra destiny point for you. (Not that it affects you)