Hi

I received F&D for Xmas and am ready to start Lost Knowledge in a few weeks. However I am including a house rule or two to add flavor mostly. So I thought u would share. If anyone has other house rules please feel free to share them.

Dark Whispers:

This additional rule is designed to represent the seductive quality of the dark side.

Any Player who's character falls below 40 morality nominates another player to be the voice of the dark side. The voice of the dark side can offer the PC the choice of rolling 1 additional dice per session after a roll has been made. However in response the player gains conflict = the number of symbols rolled X 3 and flips a destiny point from light to dark. This effect can be done twice per session if below 40 morality.

This is based on the old shadow guiding from Wraith:the oblivion, and should be role played by the voice of the dark whispering in the PCs ear.

Also i am ruling any PC dropped to 0 morality has completely fallen to the dark and is removed from Player control.

So what do people think?

Also i am ruling any PC dropped to 0 morality has completely fallen to the dark and is removed from Player control.

So what do people think?

Also i am ruling any PC dropped to 0 morality has completely fallen to the dark and is removed from Player control.

So what do people think?

Any particular reason why? FFG has specifically not done this as previous editions had such rules that were looked down on by many players that think they should be allowed to play their characters as they wish.

Mainly so that players consider actions and that conflict remains important even at a low morality score.

Pretty curious idea.

Usualy I as GM is the one I tell players other "alternatives" to their moral choices when their Morality is low (or high DSP in other editions).

I use to make them roll and I use to add "alternative perceptions" when they roll like "that one is looking you badly and it's taking his hand possible to a hidden weapon", or directly give them false perception (based on roll of course) about danger and reactions.

In some particular cases, I used other players as ilusions of themlsefs to give a surprise to players XD

For example, they entered in a place ruled by dark side and illusions and one of them was falling on the dark side. The place created false illusions of one of the players and I told him because he was already saved from the effects that interpretate his own illusion XD

Was an awesome moment

I like the voice of darkness idea, but if I were to implement it, I would not apply anything mechanical.

Do your players find it difficult to continue making difficult moral choices once they go darkside?

I don't even use the 'Dark Side = Evil' paradigm, but as MM pointed out, F&D expressly didn't do this with this edition.

Darkside characters seem to be intended as viable PCs from the RAW, as long as they accept the 'doesn't play well with others' mechanical drawbacks that come with it.

Mainly so that players consider actions and that conflict remains important even at a low morality score.

Considering everything else a low morality person has to deal with - from the mechanical hits to strain to the social repercussions of their actions - they're already being punished. It seems unnecessary to take their character away as an additional sanction. Besides, at its heart, isn't Star Wars a story about redemption? Why take that powerful story arc off the table because of a arbitrary number.

You mentioned Wraith, so I'm thinking you'll understand when I say low morality is not falling to the Beast. Of course, since this is House Rules we're talking about, maybe it is. Your table, your universe.

Personally, I'd encourage every single conflict I could if a player wants to run that way. What comes around goes around. Trust me, with all the revenge headed this guy's direction he'll have more than enough to keep him thinking. Dark? Yeah. Rabid dog needing to be put down? Maybe not the best career option.....

You mentioned Wraith, so I'm thinking you'll understand when I say low morality is not falling to the Beast. Of course, since this is House Rules we're talking about, maybe it is. Your table, your universe.

Personally, I'd encourage every single conflict I could if a player wants to run that way. What comes around goes around. Trust me, with all the revenge headed this guy's direction he'll have more than enough to keep him thinking. Dark? Yeah. Rabid dog needing to be put down? Maybe not the best career option.....

This is basically what I am worried about. One of the players I am running for I have seen have a very sadistic streak in other games. Now I may well be worrying about nothing but I am thinking well if he goes that way again at least I have a cut off as I very much doubt redemption would appeal to him. He tends to be a roll player rather than a role player.

TBH I may be worrying over nothing he may decide to go paragon instead.

You might consider just waiting to deal with a PC with zero Morality score until it happens, if it ever does.

At least in my game, the PCs started off with 50 or above and we now have 2 out of 4 Light Side Paragons and one who is right on the brink.

If you think your PCs are going to be barrelling down to zero then maybe that's more an issue with the players than it is with the rules about what happens when they reach zero. It sounds to me like more of a "what if" that probably won't come up.

"So I go into a bar and order a drink. Then I kill the bartender! HAHAHAHAHHHAAAAHAHA!"

One of those? Oh gods. My condolences.

You may want to talk to the guy, tell him he's effectively killing not just himself, but the game as well. Maybe your table isn't the best fit for him, etc. Me? I killed all my rabid dogs ages ago. Good luck.

My plan as GM is to regularly provide the lure of the Dark Side as suggestions, not only to let them know they can spend black points on the Force die and not inherently be 'evil' but to push them down that path if they're susceptible to it.

First it'll be encouragement on spending Dark Side on saving the innocent at crucial moments, then it'll be for any acts of helping others or simple self-preservation, and once they're doing that on a regular basis it "won't be a big deal" to do it for petty things. Or hey why not do bad things if it's for the right reason? "Wouldn't it be better if only a few people die if a lot more can be saved?" "He's the bad guy, who cares what you do to him?"

So by the time I have to point out that force-choking people for looking at them funny makes *them* the bad guy, they won't have even noticed how far they've fallen. I find it a more enjoyable moral development and motivation than simply being evil because the player feels like it.

This is basically what I am worried about. One of the players I am running for I have seen have a very sadistic streak in other games. Now I may well be worrying about nothing but I am thinking well if he goes that way again at least I have a cut off as I very much doubt redemption would appeal to him. He tends to be a roll player rather than a role player.

I would try a different tactic here. Instead of coming up with game mechanics to hold him in check, talk to him about your concerns. Actually, talk to all the players. Make sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of tone and theme. That gives you the chance to go "Any unnecessary violence will have in game repercussions."

And then when the sadistic guy goes off, suddenly the contacts stop talking to him, cops hassle him even when he's doing nothing, and some really scary and disgusting people (Folks that make Hitler and Genghis Khan look like pacifists) are thrilled to see him. At the very least, when the crew cant get jobs because people are scare to deal with them, peer pressure will take care of matters for you.

I don't like this because it should be the GM that makes the consequences for the players actions. I would suggest if your players have issues playing moral "good" characters then either you as the GM aren't making the world around them have consequences for those actions or maybe they want to play a different game than you are running. Maybe they want to play a darkside campaign?

My question would be--if one player is going psycho killer what are the rest of the group doing? Are they just standing by letting it happen or willfully ignoring his actions?

Well fingers crossed he seems to have gone the other way. He made a Guardian: Peacekeeper for when we start in a couple of weeks. So that particular house rule should not come into effect.

My own House Rule if I ever run it as opposed to play it?

Lightsaber Combat style trees are generic specs just like Combat Training in AOR. I think tying them to the specs is just stupid and completely converse of how the styles should operate. A very obvious bit of lazy design to keep 3 specs per thing.

Look up the RPG Better Angels by Greg S. (One Roll Engine). It uses a similar mechanic. Every player plays a human possessed by a demon. Every player plays the demon of the player to his left. There are some really cool rules and guidelines for handling this, so it doesn't create issues. You should look it up... awesome RPG and very useful for the rules you're tinkering with.

Lightsaber technique talents can count as prerequisite for talents in other specialization if player doesn't want multiple techniques since they can't use both same time to replace Brawn

My own House Rule if I ever run it as opposed to play it?

Lightsaber Combat style trees are generic specs just like Combat Training in AOR. I think tying them to the specs is just stupid and completely converse of how the styles should operate. A very obvious bit of lazy design to keep 3 specs per thing.

So what about the PCs that want to start out as being a lightsaber user?

By making the LS Form specs all be universal specs, which a PC can't pick as their beginning specialization, you've now forced that PC to spend an extra 20 XP at char-gen if their concept involved being trained in one of the six classic Forms.

My own House Rule if I ever run it as opposed to play it?

Lightsaber Combat style trees are generic specs just like Combat Training in AOR. I think tying them to the specs is just stupid and completely converse of how the styles should operate. A very obvious bit of lazy design to keep 3 specs per thing.

So what about the PCs that want to start out as being a lightsaber user?

By making the LS Form specs all be universal specs, which a PC can't pick as their beginning specialization, you've now forced that PC to spend an extra 20 XP at char-gen if their concept involved being trained in one of the six classic Forms.

If I were to go with this idea I would have PCs choose a career but let their 1st specialization be any lightsaber form they want

or I would allow for lightsaber forms to not cost the additional 10 xp for non-career specializations to let it be easier to train more than one since it takes more than one to do what a jedi can do

I like it--- but I don't like the GNC (generate new character) at 0. If he is falling and keeps falling it's because he's choosing to--- the first couple times the dark side is tapped it's because the roll may be really important so he takes the dark side. After that the player is most likely just falling...or...embracing. Let him fall but I'd suggest , since this a group friendly RPG that should steer away from PVP ( don't mistake player vs player RP conflict with physical conflict), that he make sure that his character can still function with the other PCs without killing them. I'd even suggest very very visible signs of dark side on lower end -- the evil eyes, pallid skin, obvious dark veins ...even make him less disariable to be around PC and NPC...just RP wise...

You can also let the character continue into negative numbers. The more dark actions they do, the harder and harder it will become to redeem themselves. Of course, as his actions continue I would suggest having the character incur obligation as well. After a while it must be difficult to not attract vengeful attention.

Hell-- you could put him on the spot. A Sith Lord may capture him on a downtime...and he can give him secret missions. Eventually he will say-- cut your ties. You belong to the dark side, kill your companions. Than go to the crew under guise...tell them one of their crew mates was contracted to kill them (via dark hood and holocall). Let the dark sider first make his choice to his dark lord. Than deliver the message to the others. Let them RP it out hopefully...maybe they can convince him he's gone to **** far and needs help or they smoke his bum. Depends on how you want to play it-- but giving some story to the end of his character or at least the end of his path to the dark side is better than just " you hit zero you lose" Because you could just sit at 1--- gain light lose light and float on that 1--- which would be annoying.