For the short version, skip to the last 3 paragraphs.

So, with the final Beta update, the method for triggering Morality got swapped from a d10 to a d100, going from triggering based on a matching ones place based on a d10 to triggering based on the closest Morality score with a d100. This essentially swaps it so instead of possibly triggering no Morality or even possibly triggering multiple moralities, to always triggering a player’s morality.

I’ve had a chance to run a number of sessions with the new rules with my players, one is our normal one with a healthy mix of characters – some with Duty, some with Obligation, and one with Morality. Another group is just force users, with only Morality.

For the mixed group, I decided to stick with the new Morality triggering rules for a while, and while constant doubling of triggered Morality can make Conflict gain pretty high and in theory, should’ve made the player’s journey slightly more interesting - overall the player, even with a number of bad rolls when rolling against his Conflict at the end of the session, was able to sky-rocket over to 100 Morality pretty quickly. Essentially even with a number of bad decisions and a fair few bad Conflict rolls, the player was able to become the Light Side Paragon he wanted to be in a much shorter time than he would likely otherwise be. So from then on I decided, as per suggestion of the rules, to disregard triggering Morality altogether for this particular group for now.

For the latter, force-sensitive/Morality-only group, triggering Morality quickly became heavily skewed. So, as it started, most everyone started with 50 Morality and one player at 29. Pretty quickly, the new rules proved to be a bit of a problem, with the dark side player being triggered the most frequently as all the other players were slowly working their way up to light side. After 5 sessions things started locking into a pattern: the dark side player who hovered around the 1-10 Morality most sessions was pretty much getting triggered half the time, a player sitting around the 60 Morality mark was getting triggered the second most. The 4 other players, who were at around the 80 Morality point when this started, hit a strange point where mostly only the outermost players would be triggered. So if they were at 78, 82, 84, and 86, 78 and 86 were the ones getting triggered the most. And soon after, it became that 86 got to and stuck around 100. So then it got to where the 84 person got triggered a fair amount and they sprung forward to 100, and then 82, and then 78. And by the end, even with some player shifting (light side player switching to being towards the middle, the guy in the middle shifting to being closer to the light side), triggering eventually became 30% the dark side player, 40% the person in the middle, and then the rest of the 4 light side players, with whoever happened to just barely be the lowest being called the most out of the 4.

Now, I can see the potential narrative argument for why this game mechanic can be this way; you can say that people further away from their friends in terms of how they act are more likely to break away and act in a different way. And you could also say that given that the whole deal with the Morality mechanic and Force Sensitives is that their struggle is with Conflict/Morality and so it should be triggered every time. But really, as I see it, the new way of getting players triggered is broken, and given that everyone with a Morality scale is already playing to the struggle, that there isn’t really a need to force somebody to be triggered every session.

So basically, at least with the groups I ran with, triggering Morality the new way doesn’t seem to really work. You could definitely say it’s just from what I’ve experienced with it, but trying to be objective, I’m not entirely sure if it would work well with most groups unless the players are playing faster and looser with Conflict. So I tried to come up with a sort of compromise between the old triggering system and the new one. Essentially, you roll a d100, if the ones place matches a player’s Morality, they get triggered. If multiple players share the same ones place, the tens place is the tie-breaker with lower morality player taking the bottom set versus the higher morality player taking the higher set (0x-4x vs. 5x-9x); in the event of an exact shared Morality number (two players at 50 for example) or 3+ players sharing a ones with a tie-breaker still leaving multiple players, then its GM discretion on who triggers after the tie-breaker.

Basically, this keeps it so it’s just a single d100 roll for Obligation/Duty/Morality, and similar to Obligation/Duty, it keeps it so that Morality does not have to be triggered every session (which allows rolling to trigger Morality more viable for groups with less Force-sensitives).

Feel free to post comments, suggestions, or criticisms. This is really just sort of a half-baked solution I came up with on the fly 20 minutes ago, so my feelings won’t be hurt if anyone decides to completely tear it down. And feel free to post how the new Morality triggering rules have been working with your groups; I'm genuinely curious to know how it's working out for other groups and if it's just my groups that need the alternative.