Morality Rework

I am not a huge fan of the current system of how the current unique mechanic functions in F&D (by unique mechanic I am referring to morality, duty and obligation in one phrase). I am sure this is to late in the game a overall and will not happen but well I have to try. Let me give some background as to why I want a change (don’t care if it is my idea or not) so badly. First I am ALLWYS the GM, so I have little to no point of reference on how to look at the mechanic form a PC point of view.

All of my issues stem from two places 1) I have not as a GM found a way to use effectively the mechanic as a tool like I have with Duty and Obligation. To my play group and I it feels like something we have to do and not something that drives the story. 2) it does not fit in well with the other unique mechanics.

A few things I hope to address with this rework.

The linear progression of up or down on something as complex as morality. I see my PCs letting this Gimmick make major changes in the way they play so as to get to a mechanical advantage. And once a PC gets there they just sit at the top of the paragon or in the depths of the dark side. I want something that lets the player go through the vast swings that we see in the films and EU.

The d10 just needs to go away. In more than one session I have had a PC make not so good choice and get a good die roll and go up in morality or make awesome choice and turn to the “quick and easy path”. With the whole party taking conflict for the dumb actions of a dark side and a low die roll just make me as a GM and the PC a little frustrated.

Conflict as a one sided coin. You always avoid the dark and never embrace the light. You passively become more of a paragon and actively fall to the dark. If a PC wants to go either way he/she needs to work at it.

I want the GM to be able to use the unique mechanic as a tool to guide the story and provide a little background for the PC. With a combo of the previous points that is near imposable. It just feels like it happens. And if I want to lure one PC to the dark side for story peruses he in a way gets punished for it.

I am with FFG on the fact that the unique mechanic in each game needs to function alone but also needs to play well with the other 2. In EotE we get to lower strain , in AoR we bump up wound thresholds . So logically in F&D we get to increase and decrees both… this does not fit well in my book. But there is a rescores to FFGs credit the current morality do mess with it a bit, but to me it only makes sense to have the unique mechanic revolve around DESTINY ! (It is on the cover of the book so it fits.)

I think Destiny (grand things of the future ) needs to take its place next to Obligation (effects form the past ), and Duty (status of the present ). The rest of this will be written as a new item and not referencing the current morality system. I hope to keep it in line with obligation and duty as how much effect it has on the game and let it have a place in all FFG SW RPGs not just F&D.

Step 2 of Character creation determine destiny: Every hero has a destiny, form a farm boy on a desert world to a unaltered clone orphaned at a young age. Your destiny is an idea of what your hero was made to do. (Become a Jedi/sith, win a great battle, lead a people, write a data log to change the galaxy, ECT) you and your GM pick a destiny defied enough so you the PC can have a say but lose enough so your GM can make it fit (this is the part where FFG makes a cool 12 part chart with a 13 ^th box telling you to roll twice.)

With a destiny you have a idea of where you think the living force might be pulling you but you have no idea the road to get there. Destiny is in 2 parts a narrative description, and a numeric vale. You start a game with 5-10 destiny and on your adventures you will gain it in 2 ways, Conflict and Serenity . Your Destiny is the sum of your conflict value and serenity value. At the start of the session roll a d100 and if the result is the same as your destiny value, you destiny will trigger. What this dos in games terms is twofold Narrative: your pc will have its destiny come into play in some fashion during the session. (If the GM can make it fit just like with obligation and duty.) Mechanical: you place a Destiny token in front of you, Light side up if you have a higher Serenity value or dark side up if a higher conflict value. This token is just like any other destiny token but only you can use it when it is on the light side and the GM can only affect you with it when it is on the dark side. (If doubles were rolled (eg 66) than place 2 tokens in this fashion.)

Conflict and Serenity

As you travel around the galaxy you will make actions that push you closer to one side of the force or the other. When you make “good” self sacrificing actions, actions out of pity, self control or rightness the GM may add to your PC serenity value. +1 for giving food to a hungry person or up to 5 or more for putting yourself in mortal danger for little or no Gain for yourself. Conversely you may do things that pull you closer to the dark side gaining you conflict, acting out of fear, hate or anger. When you do this the GM may add to your conflict value. + 1 for lying or theft or up to 5 or more for mortally harming an innocent person.

Conflict value + Serenity Value = Destiny value.

Destiny Thresholds

When a PC at the start of a session has over 100 Destiny value he or she will have their destiny affect the session in a Major way. (up to the GM) the PCs Destiny automatically triggers. After triggering the destiny value is reduced back to 0 to start the climb to the next chapter in a PCs destiny. The GM needs to pay attention the how the value reached 100 if the PC reached it by mostly conflict the PCs density might take a darker turn or if serenity is the main contributor it makes their path toward the light and the plot hook needs to reflect the PCs choices.

Vader is a good example of this destiny cycle. He stars off good selling all he has to aid some strangers, becoming a Jedi, letting the girl cloud him, killing kids, ruling the galaxy with a iron fist, trying to over throw the emperor with his son, and finely making a full swing in the last chapter to serenity again and killing the emperor at the cost of his own life.

If you read all of this thank you and please fell free to help me tweak it and make it better. I have tough skin and if the internet is good for one thing it is telling how bad your hopes dreams and ideas are. So feel free to do so. Also I wrote this at 4am so I am sure there are grammar and spelling errors. If I need to expound on anything or make clarification please let me know.

I fell like many of you that the current morality system in play does not give us what we want as GMs or players, and so I feel that complaining does not help so this is how I try and help.

It is an interesting mechanic. I do have my own criticisms of it however. I also want to state out that I am a supporter of the Morality mechanic so that is out in the open.

1) Just because Destiny is in the title, I don't see why people go on about how the system has to be Destiny. I don't see the titles of the books being "Rebellions Duty" or "Obligations on the Edge" etc.

2) I don't really see how having a 'personal Destiny point' really helps or changes the game much. Especially if you have a party entirely of Force users. Doesn't that then make the Destiny pool at the start mostly irrelevant?

3) The Destiny idea is interesting however is a lot more campaign orientated rather than session orientated. I see the Destiny mechanic you made as something that is an extension of the Morality mechanic, not a replacement for it.

When it comes to morality, I think it works with the systems very well as someone who has both played as a GM and as a player.

Honestly I think I like the gist of this better than the current Morality mechanic. I really don't like the randomness of Morality because it interferes with the character's story...you're always having to rationalize after the fact a roll that goes opposite. I also don't like the focus of the name "Morality" and I think Destiny is a more important concept to the story.

The idea of Conflict and Serenity combining to make Destiny is interesting, but having to reach 100...that's a LOT of games, or a constant monitoring of every action, plus it means that those who take a middle path will get this triggered twice as fast, which only penalizes those who try hard to play one side or the other. Conceptually, maybe those who take the middle path are less "destined", so the scale could still start in the middle as it does for the Morality mechanic, and then rise or drop from there.

I really like this take on the Morality system.

My main problem with Morality (RAW) is that, unlike Obligation and Duty, it is not a campaign driver mechanic, and it feels like a poor player resource, unlike both Obligation and Duty.

The "Destiny" track as presented could fulfill the campaign driver mechanic very well, and I think the "player resource" thing attached to it (Extra destiny points) fits nicely also.

I would make some changes tough:

1) A player's "Destiny" should have 2 descriptions attached: one related to the dark side, and one to the light side.

2) Each player has both a Conflict and a Serenity score that should be tracked separately. Whenever a player performs selfish and greedy actions, he increases his Conflict. Whenever he is altruistic and generous, he increases his Serenity. When his Serenity is equal to or higher than his Conflict, the player is a light-side Force User (using white pips on the Force Die). When his Conflict is higher, he becomes a darksider (using dark pips on the Force Die).

3) The player's current Destiny score is the greater of either his Serenity or Conflict. Each player starts with 25 Conflict and 25 Serenity. Alternatively, a player can choose to start with either with 10 Conflict or 10 Morality (or both), instead. If he chooses any of these options during character creation, he starts with bonus XP or extra credits, as showed below:

10 Conflict or 10 Serenity --> +5 XP or +1000 credits

10 Conflict and 10 Serenity --> +10 XP or +2500 credits

4) Whenever a lightsider uses dark pips to activate powers (flipping a destiny point and suffering strain) he also increases his Conflict by one for each dark pip spent (he is falling in temptation and using the dark side). Similarly, a darksider who uses white pips when activating powers (flipping a destiny point and suffering strain) increases his Serenity by 1 for each white pip spent (he is restraining himself and trying to keep to the light). However, a lightsider does not increase his Serenity by using white pips and a darksider does not increase his conflict by using dark pips.

5) At the end of each session, you can increase both your Conflict and Serenity, depending on the actions taken by the character (same guidelines as OP).

6) At the beginning of each session, when the GM makes the Destiny roll, comparing it to the party's Destiny chart. If a player's Destiny is rolled, his strain threshold increases by 1 if he is a lightsider, or decreases by 1 if he is a darksider. Double this bonus or penalty if the d100 roll comes in doubles (i.e. 66, 33 etc). Either way, the player's Destiny should come into play during the session, and this means that the character should have a tough moral choice related to his destiny along the way. Also, double any Conflict or Serenity the character gains during the session.

7) Using Destiny as a resource: the player's can change his Conflict or Serenity scores to gain benefits. He can either lower his Serenity by 5 when using a Light side destiny point to prevent it from being flipped to the dark side afterwards, or he can increase his Conflict by 5 to ignore a dark side destiny point's negative effects, when the GM uses it on himself (and only himself). The destiny point still gets flipped to the light side, afterwards. Both lightsiders and darksiders can choose either option.

8) Using Destiny as Threshold: If a player's Destiny gets higher than 100, it means he is close to fulfilling his destiny. When his happens, the GM and the player arrange the details of what happens. This should be a major dramatic event and give substantial story rewards for the player. The event should also be related to the type of destiny fulfilled (light or dark). Afterwards, the player should choose (or roll) a new destiny and replace the one fulfilled, also reducing both his Conflict and Serenity by half.

The problem with all of these is that they are not KISS. they are all over complicated. So much so i stopped reading after a couple paragraphs.

I think one of the problems with morality is the fact that GMs and players are forgetting that you generate conflict in more ways than just the use of dark side force pips. You also generate them for actions. GMs really should copy off the morality chart in the GM chapter and use it to tally transgressions.

It is an interesting mechanic. I do have my own criticisms of it however. I also want to state out that I am a supporter of the Morality mechanic so that is out in the open.

1) Just because Destiny is in the title, I don't see why people go on about how the system has to be Destiny. I don't see the titles of the books being "Rebellions Duty" or "Obligations on the Edge" etc.

2) I don't really see how having a 'personal Destiny point' really helps or changes the game much. Especially if you have a party entirely of Force users. Doesn't that then make the Destiny pool at the start mostly irrelevant?

3) The Destiny idea is interesting however is a lot more campaign orientated rather than session orientated. I see the Destiny mechanic you made as something that is an extension of the Morality mechanic, not a replacement for it.

When it comes to morality, I think it works with the systems very well as someone who has both played as a GM and as a player.

1) I did not chose the resource based on the title of the book was just adding a little flavor to the post. I chose destiny as we already have a system to work with the resources of Strain and wound threshold and wanted to effect something new to make the mechanic stand out from the other two.

2) The goal was to give something a little extra for the PC it will encourage the GM to mess with that PC a little more that session. Have the GM have a few moments when that one point can make the difference in the encounter. It also dos what the current morality system dos for the light side in making the destiny economy larger, but for both light and dark players. And it not supposed to effect the game too much, like its counter parts the -1 strain or +1 wound thresh hold is not super game changing. I was attempting to keep it in the vein of those 2 ideas.

3) You are right, I did have that in mind as I feel as so dos Obligation and Duty. Obligation is the only one of the three that seems to work well in 1 shots, as it gives some context to the PCs. The Campaign idea is something I think that Morality did not do super well, It in my mind was passable but it seemed to top out before the others. You reach max morality FAR before you might even hit your second Duty reward. It was also my intention to keep the fluff parts of morality but re-work the mechanical side of it. I like the idea of it at its core just not the practice of it.

Thanks for the feedback, I will consider tweaking the personal point system. But the only other resource that effects the whole of a party is encumbrance or soak, and destiny just fits the feel I was going for.

Honestly I think I like the gist of this better than the current Morality mechanic. I really don't like the randomness of Morality because it interferes with the character's story...you're always having to rationalize after the fact a roll that goes opposite. I also don't like the focus of the name "Morality" and I think Destiny is a more important concept to the story.

The idea of Conflict and Serenity combining to make Destiny is interesting, but having to reach 100...that's a LOT of games, or a constant monitoring of every action, plus it means that those who take a middle path will get this triggered twice as fast, which only penalizes those who try hard to play one side or the other. Conceptually, maybe those who take the middle path are less "destined", so the scale could still start in the middle as it does for the Morality mechanic, and then rise or drop from there.

Your point about reaching the summit of 100 first is a valid one but in my brain I can’t think of a way to make it work, it either seems go up to fast or to slow. My first idea was to have a destiny value of Serenity – Conflict but reaching 100 would take FOREVER! (Not to mention it would encourage the pcs to game the system.) I want with a composite vale to encourage the PCs to make interesting choices not just light and dark ones. This way they get rewarded for Role playing not sticking to one affiliation. But I will say this is the weakest part of my idea. Maybe we can bash our heads together and find a way to make the math work and keep a way to reward choice no matter if it is light or dark.

Thanks for the input.

I really like this take on the Morality system.

My main problem with Morality (RAW) is that, unlike Obligation and Duty, it is not a campaign driver mechanic, and it feels like a poor player resource, unlike both Obligation and Duty.

The "Destiny" track as presented could fulfill the campaign driver mechanic very well, and I think the "player resource" thing attached to it (Extra destiny points) fits nicely also.

I would make some changes tough:

1) A player's "Destiny" should have 2 descriptions attached: one related to the dark side, and one to the light side.

2) Each player has both a Conflict and a Serenity score that should be tracked separately. Whenever a player performs selfish and greedy actions, he increases his Conflict. Whenever he is altruistic and generous, he increases his Serenity. When his Serenity is equal to or higher than his Conflict, the player is a light-side Force User (using white pips on the Force Die). When his Conflict is higher, he becomes a darksider (using dark pips on the Force Die).

3) The player's current Destiny score is the greater of either his Serenity or Conflict. Each player starts with 25 Conflict and 25 Serenity. Alternatively, a player can choose to start with either with 10 Conflict or 10 Morality (or both), instead. If he chooses any of these options during character creation, he starts with bonus XP or extra credits, as showed below:

10 Conflict or 10 Serenity --> +5 XP or +1000 credits

10 Conflict and 10 Serenity --> +10 XP or +2500 credits

4) Whenever a lightsider uses dark pips to activate powers (flipping a destiny point and suffering strain) he also increases his Conflict by one for each dark pip spent (he is falling in temptation and using the dark side). Similarly, a darksider who uses white pips when activating powers (flipping a destiny point and suffering strain) increases his Serenity by 1 for each white pip spent (he is restraining himself and trying to keep to the light). However, a lightsider does not increase his Serenity by using white pips and a darksider does not increase his conflict by using dark pips.

5) At the end of each session, you can increase both your Conflict and Serenity, depending on the actions taken by the character (same guidelines as OP).

6) At the beginning of each session, when the GM makes the Destiny roll, comparing it to the party's Destiny chart. If a player's Destiny is rolled, his strain threshold increases by 1 if he is a lightsider, or decreases by 1 if he is a darksider. Double this bonus or penalty if the d100 roll comes in doubles (i.e. 66, 33 etc). Either way, the player's Destiny should come into play during the session, and this means that the character should have a tough moral choice related to his destiny along the way. Also, double any Conflict or Serenity the character gains during the session.

7) Using Destiny as a resource: the player's can change his Conflict or Serenity scores to gain benefits. He can either lower his Serenity by 5 when using a Light side destiny point to prevent it from being flipped to the dark side afterwards, or he can increase his Conflict by 5 to ignore a dark side destiny point's negative effects, when the GM uses it on himself (and only himself). The destiny point still gets flipped to the light side, afterwards. Both lightsiders and darksiders can choose either option.

8) Using Destiny as Threshold: If a player's Destiny gets higher than 100, it means he is close to fulfilling his destiny. When his happens, the GM and the player arrange the details of what happens. This should be a major dramatic event and give substantial story rewards for the player. The event should also be related to the type of destiny fulfilled (light or dark). Afterwards, the player should choose (or roll) a new destiny and replace the one fulfilled, also reducing both his Conflict and Serenity by half.

1) I think we are thinking along the same lines in this but we might not need different descriptions just different ways that they play out. EG. If a PC destiny is his home land, he may defend it in an epic clash or attack and sack it. I don’t think k we need descriptions but give the GM and PC vague ideas to fit there overarching story.

2) The main issue I have with this is it will flip all too quickly. And the dice have been balanced to where the devs want them. Also when a score resets to zero after one encounter he might go from paragon to dark Jedi. Just a thought.

3) As I said to Whafrog’s post I think this is the area that needs the most work. Finding a pacing to pay out serenity and conflict that feels right with obligation and duty has been the biggest obstacle in my thinking. I love the starting stats for credits and XP you laid out but am not sold on only taking the larger value, I just think it will take way too long to pay out. The only way I can think to make this work is resetting destiny every time it triggers. So if you have a conflict score of 37 and roll a 37 or less on the destiny roll you get triggered and have a plot point in the nights adventure, but this once again brings the plot away from the GM and back to the dice. Love the Chart though.

4) at first this was in my write up but as I thought about it I did not like it for one reason. Duty and obligation the PCs have little control over its ebb and flow that is one of the GMs jobs. This give the PCs with a force rating a chance to move there destiny faster than those without a force rating. (Furthermore the higher rating the more the PC can speed the process up.) I want destiny to be available and just as useful to a bounty hunter or commodore as it is to a Jedi or Sith.

5) In my mind we are thinking along the same lines here. Just our scores add up in a different fashion.

6) 2 things I don’t like about the idea, but I will consider your feedback. First obligation deals with strain and I want destiny to do a unique thing. And 2 I don’t want to punish a PC for well RP a dark side antihero. I am not sure how I fell about the 2x the conflict and serenity this I will have to test.

7) This same as point 4 I like the GM controlling the ebb and flow and not giving the PCs a way to remove a core part of the game in the destiny pool. I just know too many of my PC will game the system if I let them.

8) I like steps along a single destiny over the life of a PC rather than a PC doling lots of epic thing, so using destiny to mark progress over many chapters of a PCs life. EG if a PC wants his destiny to be save the Jedi, at the first we might find a lightsaber CH2 become a Knight form a lost master. CH3 find a student NPC or new PC to train. And CH 4 start a small academy in secret. Same destiny but lots of little steps along the way. Jut my two cents though.

Thanks for you’re though feedback I will meditate on what all 3 of you have said.

The problem with all of these is that they are not KISS. they are all over complicated. So much so i stopped reading after a couple paragraphs.

I think one of the problems with morality is the fact that GMs and players are forgetting that you generate conflict in more ways than just the use of dark side force pips. You also generate them for actions. GMs really should copy off the morality chart in the GM chapter and use it to tally transgressions.

I can deffintly see your point, but is it that much more complex then Duty or Oblgation? I don't see it as such (but I may be wrong.)

I will see if I can stremline it a bit to cut down on the steps to take becuse KISS is somthing I am trying to keep to.

Thanks.

Your point about reaching the summit of 100 first is a valid one but in my brain I can’t think of a way to make it work, it either seems go up to fast or to slow. My first idea was to have a destiny value of Serenity – Conflict but reaching 100 would take FOREVER! (Not to mention it would encourage the pcs to game the system.)

That was my point. You don't really need to track two separate values. With your option players will tend to be stuck in the middle. TedMaul's option has a similar problem, the Destiny score is the higher of Conflict or Serenity, which means a player can flip-flop between light side and dark side for the most minor of acts.

I think you could just use the Morality scale as it is now, i.e.: rename it to Destiny, start at 50, with thresholds and triggers as you approach 0 or 100. I see the terms "Conflict" and "Serenity" more as fluff to describe the kinds of acts that drive the Destiny score, but they don't need to be tracked outright. You could still keep the current Morality Strain and Wound mods, they seem reasonable to me.

Perhaps as a storytelling tool, you could allocate each decade crossed by the PC as a "Destiny marker", so, for example, they might start at 50, and once they drop below 40 the GM and player work up a minor Destiny-related event. The event should be something that puts the player in the position of either driving themselves deeper into the dark side, or having some kind of chance at redemption...there is no neutral ground. Once the Destiny event is resolved, the PC will either gain 5 Conflict (driving them to 35 or lower) or will gain 5 Serenity (bumping them back above 40). You could also have major Destiny-related events at each 20 mark (or maybe only at 10, and 90), with the gain in Conflict or Serenity being 10 or more.

I didn't give too much thoughts on the Morality Mechanic, feeling that is was quite fine the way it was... But after reading many topics on it where people ask for a change, it got me thinking and I think I found a good solution... Here are my feelings on the matter...

General Feeling :

I really like the Emotional Strength and Weaknesses akin to EotE Obligations and AoR Duty. This way, each Force User character has somekind of a cause he wants to pursue, tied to a dark side feeling that can drag him down. You can strive for justice, but your actions can sometimes border cruelty against the unjust.

Unfortunately, unlike Obligations or Duty, the Morality mechanic is more of a moral compass then a true GM tool to further the story of each character. Also, Obligation and Duty each have their own unique flavor and are quite distinct from each other, but use a similar mechanic. Unfortunately, Morality steps on Obligation's strain but doesn't really give any benefits.

Also, I wanted to keep Journey really similar to Obligation and Duty, and not make it more special because it is a Force or Destiny thing.

Obligations :

• Gain Obligations to gain an immediate ressource (money, favor, equipment, etc.) ;
• Triggered Obligation lowers strain.

Duty :

• Accumulate Duty to gain a future ressource (money, favor, equipment, etc.) ;
• Triggered Duty raises wounds.

Suggestion :

Change Morality to Journey : I think it has the right feeling to it and you often hear the word "journey" in the movies.

1. Like the current Morality mechanic, the players choose their character combination of Emotional Strength and Weakness at creation.
2. Journey starts at 50. You can trade 20 points of Journey (starting at 30) for 10xp or more credits at character creation.
3. Roll a 10-sided dice at the start of a game session, if the number rolled is found in the character's Journey score, it triggers and will impact the game.

In-game trigger :

When the character is confronted with his triggered journey, the character can solve the situation using his Emotional Strength or his Emotional Weakness. Each choice has a different outcome.

Paragon :

• Character chooses to use his Emotional Strength and resists the temptations of the Dark Side.
• For the rest of the Encounter, character cannot use Dark Side pips to fuel Force powers.
• Generate 1 Light Side Destiny Point.
• Raise Journey by 5.

Fallen :

• Character chooses to use his Emotional Weakness and gives in to the temptations of the Dark Side.
• For the rest of the Encounter, character can use Dark Side pips to fuel Force powers at the cost of strain (no need to spend 1 Light Side DP).
• Generate 1 Dark Side Destiny Point.
• Lowers Journey by 5.

Light Side Treshold :

When a character reaches a Journey score of 100, he gains a bonus of 10 xp to spend on Force powers, and then resets his Journey score to 50.

Dark Side Treshold :

When a character reaches a Journey score of 0, he falls to the dark side and cannot benefit from the Fallen trigger stated earlier. A character can raise his Journey up from 0 after completing an important and selfless action.

Conclusion :

I think these little changes are more akin to the way the Dark Side and Light Side are represented in the movies, where giving in to the Dark Side feels more powerfull, his quicker, but ultimately it will consume you, while the Light Side is harder to stay true but is eventually more rewarding. I choose to give either a new LS Destiny Point or a new DS Destiny Point to make sure that you always had a choice of Light or Dark, not dependant on the Destiny pool. Also, it doesn't come in conflict with either Obligations or Duty because the ressource in the balance are Destiny Points, not strain nor wounds.

I'm still pondering if the 10xp bonus at 100 Journey is too good or just right, but I didn't think giving ressources as rewards (like Obligaiton and Duty) was fitting of a "morality" counter. Feel free to make suggestions.

So ? What do you guys think ???

Why are you punishing players who follow their morality? Not being able to use darkside pips is a bit of a punishment if they need those pips.

Why are you punishing players who follow their morality? Not being able to use darkside pips is a bit of a punishment if they need those pips.

Because they went for the Paragon, the true Light.... rejecting Darkness...

I don't want the players to game the system, always choose Paragon to get the bonus XP at 100 but feeding from the Darkside by spending their new Light Side Destiny point to get Force Points from Dark Side Pips.

I could change it to "Gain 10 Journey if you don't use Dark Side pips ; Gain 5 Journey if you used Dark Side pips" and change Fallen to "Loose 10 Journey if you use Dark Side pips ; Loose 5 Journey if you didn't use Dark Side pips"... but I feel that it is less challenging, less fun I wanted some emotional tension during the encounter... that feeding from the dark side gave you a good boost in the encounter, that staying true to the light was hard...

While I disagree that the problems stated with Morality are problems with the mechanic rather than the GM's inexperience with it (though the fact that many people have problems does mean there's room for improvement to be sure) I really like the idea of adding a more campaign spanning story hook to it, rather than only the single-session hooks of the current Morality system.

...Except you already have something to do that with in your character's Motivation. So if you want the character's Morality-triggered session to relate to their grand-overarching story, relate their moral struggle to their motivation.

I don't like the personal destiny point reward as a mechanic. It's all well and good when its the player spending the point, but what about when the GM wants to return a point to the players and he has to choose between giving it to the whole group or the player that triggered the mechanic? Not as good.

Bonus XP seems like a poor choice of high-level bonus as well, as it is imbalanced with obligation and duty rewards and limits how they can be used together.

Adding conflict and "harmony" points doesn't give as elegant a way to track when your character "falls" to the darkside either.

And people hate on the randomness, but stopping players from gaming the system is worthwhile as well, and the completely predictable math of the "add up the points" suggestions loses that and allows players free-reign to meta game it.

That was a lot of small points, and it rambles a bit. Sorry about that.

TL;DR - The current system has the ability to be far better than these suggestions, in my opinion, if only people learned how to use it before tossing it aside (or if the book did a better job explaining how to use it, as the case may be).

yeah. I see no reason a GM can't look at players Morality and make it a point to have over arching story arcs regarding them. I mean really..when a player picks them that is them picking problems for themselves. You should take advantage of that in your session and campaign writing.

To Doc Xerox : I know what you mean... I really like the morality mechanic myself, except for 3 things : the random die roll at the end of a session to see if you raise or fall, the fact that even if your Morality didn't trigger at the beginning of the session, you still get to raise/lower it, and the fact that it is not as dynamic as Obligation and Duty.

For Obligation, you can gamble the numbers of obligations you take, always making sure to stay below 100 total for the group, gaining advantages along the story to make the journey easier...

Its GET NOW RISK LATER.

For Duty, you have to chose between helping your Duty along, doing helpful stuff for the Alliance, with the risk of exposing yourselves and putting at risk your main mission.... raising your duty helping you to get better and more valuable stuff.

Its RISK NOW GET LATER.

But for Morality... once you get above the Paragon treshold, you just hang tight and do nothing... You have to game the system a little in the first few games, then after that you just game it to keep what you have. I feel the risk level has been removed to diminished a lot with Morality.

Its RISK NOTHING GET ALL

If you remove the random roll at the end of each session, you make sure that FU character won't raise to Paragon in 3-4 sessions gaming the system.

Doctor Xerox,

I'm very much reminded of the AoR Beta discussions about Duty, and how that was deemed a "flawed" mechanic due simply to lack of clarification on how Duty should be awarded to the players. There was also a bit of kavitching that triggering a PC's Duty should apply the bonus to Strain Threshold instead of Wound Threshold, in spite of other folks pointing that games using both Duty and Obligation were likely, and that triggering Duty and Obligation in that instance would ultimately cancel the effects of the two out.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your "TL:DR" section about how many of these suggestions of entirely new systems have more to do with not wanting to try and actually understand the existing system.

Like you said, the player's Emotional Strength and Weakness should be used as RP hooks for both the player and the GM; the player for how to portray their character and what responses they'd have to given situations, and the GM to set up plot hooks even when the PC's Morality doesn't trigger.

But for Morality... once you get above the Paragon treshold, you just hang tight and do nothing... You have to game the system a little in the first few games, then after that you just game it to keep what you have. I feel the risk level has been removed to diminished a lot with Morality.

Its RISK NOTHING GET ALL

If you remove the random roll at the end of each session, you make sure that FU character won't raise to Paragon in 3-4 sessions gaming the system.

No you don't. Everybody seems to ignore several sources of conflict. If you as a GM are not using the table in the GM section regarding morality you are breaking the system. Table 9-2 page 220. Print that out. in fact make it a table with slots to the right for each player. put a tick mark in the appropriate rows every time a player does on of those things. tally at the end with the number of darkside pips converted. See how much conflict a player is really generating per session. I am pretty sure it is probably a higher number than you think.

But for Morality... once you get above the Paragon treshold, you just hang tight and do nothing... You have to game the system a little in the first few games, then after that you just game it to keep what you have. I feel the risk level has been removed to diminished a lot with Morality.

Its RISK NOTHING GET ALL

If you remove the random roll at the end of each session, you make sure that FU character won't raise to Paragon in 3-4 sessions gaming the system.

No you don't. Everybody seems to ignore several sources of conflict. If you as a GM are not using the table in the GM section regarding morality you are breaking the system. Table 9-2 page 220. Print that out. in fact make it a table with slots to the right for each player. put a tick mark in the appropriate rows every time a player does on of those things. tally at the end with the number of darkside pips converted. See how much conflict a player is really generating per session. I am pretty sure it is probably a higher number than you think.

I created an Word doc table with that information, and have it saved as an image file on my computer for when I run my Skype games so that I can very quickly reference it when a situation that might result in Conflict being generated comes up.

I really do hope it's included with the inevitable FaD GM screen, since it does seem a lot of GMs are overlooking said chart, even if only as a list of suggested guidelines for how much Conflict certain actions will generate.