Good afternoon from East Coast USA,

I'm curious about using Obligation, Duty, and Morality in a Star Wars game. Has any one tried them all out before? Should it just be one or the other? What do you (the GMs) think?

There's also a topic for the player in the main topic forum. I posted this here so that there can be a separate topic for GMs.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/141276-player-perspective-obligation-duty-and-morality/

Morality can be interesting, but doesn't mean a whole lot if you're not a force user. It can have some interesting effects in a military themed campaign to trace the 'moral high ground' of the players, particularly of Aliance vs. Empire, but it can be a lot on the Game Master, because you really have to give out a lot of Dark Side. Statistically, they'll get 5.5 points on their die roll, which means to stay 'average' or 'grey' they should be accumulating 5-6 conflict points per session. If you don't give out that many for playing 'normally', everyone's just going to shoot to paragon and it becomes irrelevant.

Duty only works if everyone is part of an organization that's supplying them and counting on them for things. This organization doesn't have to be the Alliance, but it does have to be someone they answer to, and more importantly, it's really designed to be the same group for everyone. I've toyed with having duty be to a Hutt for a Merc group. Duty is basically a way to track value to and resources from an organization.

Obligation is, well, your obligations others. Meshing this with duty can be difficult, because it means the characters are naturally conflicted between their obligation(s) and their duty. This can lead to a lot of great situations, but it could also completely derail the game.

Ever since Force and Destiny beta book came out I have integrated the morality system with my Force sensitive players. If they have ties to the rebellion or empire, I use duty for those characters. And I make sure everyone in the group has at least 5 obligation after a handful of sessions.

The only problem I've had so far integrating all three into a group is the bookkeeping. However if you use one of the many fan generated group sheet those things become trivial. No, I do not give morality to non-force sensitive characters. I have seen some talk of it but it never tickle my fancy.

This is what I tell new players;

If a character starts with a career in the Edge of the Empire core, they would start with obligation. If they branched into their second career from Age of Rebellion book, I would then give them duty. And then, if said character once again decides to buy a third career as exile or emergent I would give them morality. Right now, the only way you can use a career from Forcing & Destiny in my campaigns is if you start with those as your beginning career and survived order 66 somehow.

It works a little easier if you don't stack them. Pick the one that goes best with each character and go with it. That said, you can and the game will still work fine, though starting and finishing each session will be a little roll happy.

The real point of the three is to add another level of player input into each adventure. If a character has something like Obligation:Family, the GM can tie that into the game, allowing a normally mundane encounter/side quest about a Slicer for hire to instead be about the player characters kid sister who happens to be a slicer for hire with a problem.

In case you don't know:

Obligation:

• Intended for fringer types but may apply to any character that gets in trouble or tends to owe people.
• Get be everything from debt, to addiction to a oath or sworn duty, family issues, ect.
• Represents the issues the player cares about. Not just any old debt.
• Can also track how "hot" the players are. Low Ob means they are small time, Maxed out means Most Wanted level.
• Player can voluntary take on additional Ob to get a leg up or get out of a tricky situation.
• At the beginning of each session make a roll, activated Obligation will give a minor penalty to the character/characters in question, and GM is encouraged to have that Ob somehow manifest in the adventure (some people roll at the end of each session to apply it more seamlessly to the next).
• At 100 total party Ob everyone is locked and cannot spend XP until they do something to get it back down.

Duty:

• Intended for military types.
• Represents things they can do to help the war effort and get the attention of their superiors.
• Includes things like recruitment, sabotage, space superiority.
• At the beginning of each session make a roll, if a Duty activates the player/players get a minor boost and the GM is encouraged to incorporate it into the adventure.
• Can also track how "respected" a character is.
• Every time the combined Duty of the player crosses a factor of 100, the players get a big boost. A better ship, or increase in rank, or soemthing else showing how they progressed.

Morality:

• Intended for Force users. Unlike Duty and Ob which can be tacked onto a force user to the same end result, Morality on a non force user will have comparatively less effects.
• Applies a noted emotional strength and weakness to the player
• Like Duty and Ob can be triggered. It won't provide a bonus/penalty, but is expected to manifest in game if possible.
• Over each session you get conflict points. At the end of each session you roll a D10. Roll under your points, your Morality goes up by the difference. Roll over it goes down. Conflict is reset to 0 at the start of each session.
• You get some conflict for "using the dark side" on force powers.Think of it less as actually willfully calling on the darkside and more of a mechanical "Did you REALLY need to use the force for that?" Even lightside players are expected to get a couple conflict each session.
• You get a LOT more conflict for making jerkface decisions. For example: "Using the darkside" will give you 1 conflict point. "Theft" will get you 3 points. So a character that occasionally uses dark pips on force powers but otherwise behaves will be fine, and probably get to paragon level pretty quick. A player never uses the darkside but goes around burning down orphanages will fall in a session or two.
• Turning Darkside (low morality score) gives some minor penalties to you and the group, but makes you physically tougher and makes it easier to use the force. Character is still playable, and not totally punished. So you can do the Sith teaming up with Jedi to accomplish a common goal with some good results.
• Becoming a lightside paragon (high morality score) give you a minor bonus and a bonus to the group.
• It's easier to stay dark then it is to stay light.

Interesting. Here was an example on how I was thinking about using all three:

(Note: I do not have the books on me to reference what each chart has. I also apologized for using the big three from the Original Trilogy.)

Leia: She starts off with the Duty Mechanic. Once she is caught by Vader and Tarkin, she gains the Bounty Obligation, since she is a member of the Rebellion and is one of the more important members to boot. Morality would come into play due to her being a caring person, though perhaps a bit too caring.

Luke: Luke starts off with an Obligation to family/friends. Through the time on Tatooine, he is restricted on what he can and cannot do due to this Obligation. Unfortunately for him, Luke's aunt and uncle are killed but Obi-wan Kenobi takes over the Obligation until he goes. Luke then defines his Obligation to include Leia, Han, Chewiie, and his squadron at the end of the movie. In turn, because he just destroyed the Death Star as well as being the "last" Jedi, he gains Reckless for his negative Morality.

Han: A smuggler in the beginning, Han starts off with the Obligation to Jabba the Hutt as well as the Greedy/Honorable aspects of Morality. His goal was originally to take two nerfherders and their rusting bolt buckets to Alderaan and get paid handsomely. Unfortunately, he gets dragged into the Rebellion due to having to save his own skin. He reluctantly takes a Duty with the Rebellion, mostly to keep getting paid as well as to get on the good side of a princess.

What do you all think?

It really comes down to how they are used, I believe. My initial though was this:

Obligation is easy, in that it is about who the players deal with and the nature of the dealings.

Duty comes from either the belief in something bigger than themselves or that they feel they can profit from a relationship.

Morality means doing what is right over what is easy/convenient. Do the players do the right thing or do they let things slide? Do they let their emotions get the better of them or do they control their impulses?

While it can be unwieldy, especially initially, one way I would regulate this is by using a D6 to decide how many charts to roll on.

1-2: Roll on one chart

3-5: Roll on two charts

6: Roll on all three

Granted, this rule will get trumped if the story is feeling like it can go different, especially if it's an arc about one or two characters.

Even then, I don't have to roll for Morality and use it like the Alignment Chart from D&D or the Renegade/Paragon like system from Mass Effect. This way it deals with more on how a player treat npcs and the reactions and attitudes of the npcs.

The rulebooks suggest keeping it at a maximum of two such mechanics per player (Obligation + Duty, Duty + Morality, Morality + Obligation). I find, as a GM, that having all three mechanics means too much for my players to meaningfully roleplay and too much for me to meaningfully track. HOWEVER, groups can be very interesting with a mix of the three: say you have two characters with 15 Obligation each (one which has Morality), a character with 15 Duty, a character with 15 Obligation & 15 Duty, and a character with Duty & Morality, and a character with just Morality. This means that you have 6 players, and that there are no more than 3 characters that have either Obligation, Duty, or Morality. This kind of mix can be really cool as you roll for each effect at the beginning of the session.

Consider also that PCs also have Motivations they are supposed to be playing towards, and you're supposed to be rewarding them for doing so. IMO, it puts too much on a GM's plate to worry about a PC having Obligation, Duty, Morality, and a distinct Motivation.

Interesting. Here was an example on how I was thinking about using all three:

(Note: I do not have the books on me to reference what each chart has. I also apologized for using the big three from the Original Trilogy.)

Leia: She starts off with the Duty Mechanic. Once she is caught by Vader and Tarkin, she gains the Bounty Obligation, since she is a member of the Rebellion and is one of the more important members to boot. Morality would come into play due to her being a caring person, though perhaps a bit too caring.

Luke: Luke starts off with an Obligation to family/friends. Through the time on Tatooine, he is restricted on what he can and cannot do due to this Obligation. Unfortunately for him, Luke's aunt and uncle are killed but Obi-wan Kenobi takes over the Obligation until he goes. Luke then defines his Obligation to include Leia, Han, Chewiie, and his squadron at the end of the movie. In turn, because he just destroyed the Death Star as well as being the "last" Jedi, he gains Reckless for his negative Morality.

Han: A smuggler in the beginning, Han starts off with the Obligation to Jabba the Hutt as well as the Greedy/Honorable aspects of Morality. His goal was originally to take two nerfherders and their rusting bolt buckets to Alderaan and get paid handsomely. Unfortunately, he gets dragged into the Rebellion due to having to save his own skin. He reluctantly takes a Duty with the Rebellion, mostly to keep getting paid as well as to get on the good side of a princess.

What do you all think?

That's... doable, but it's not quite right.

Leia: Would probably start with Duty since she's likely the Ambassador spec from AoR. She probably wouldn't gain Ob:Bounty though, because she doesn't care. See just because you have a debt, or bounty, or clingy family doesn't mean that keeps you up at night. That's the thing about Obligation, it's only what you care about. Leia's duty is really her only thing. Now... post Endor if she decides to become more Jedi... then she might want to get some morality.

Luke: While you can do that, again, probably not the best way. Luke really only needs Morality. Luke doesn't sit around worrying about his crazy Uncle Owen, or Ben, or his long lost dad. He is Brave (positive) and a little reckless or stubborn (negative) throughout the entire trilogy though.

Han: Doesn't need morality. As a non-force sensitive it has little effect on him. Does start with Obligation:Bounty. we see it twice and hear about it a third.You can't ditch obligation so that's probably it. He gets it paid down to 5 after offing Jabba, but may take roll that over into a different obligation later after Endor. He may take Duty or may not, that's optional, but there's no real need.

It really comes down to how they are used, I believe. My initial though was this:

Obligation is easy, in that it is about who the players deal with and the nature of the dealings.

Duty comes from either the belief in something bigger than themselves or that they feel they can profit from a relationship.

Morality means doing what is right over what is easy/convenient. Do the players do the right thing or do they let things slide? Do they let their emotions get the better of them or do they control their impulses?

You've got morality (mostly) right, but the other two not so much. You can roll it like that if you wish, but you'll be house ruling it. Fortunately it's a secondary mechanic that isn't required in any way shape or form, so house rules will have little impact on the game at large, so there won't be much to cascade and cause problems. There will be issues with taking obligation though. It's amazing what an extra 10 points can get you.

Even then, I don't have to roll for Morality and use it like the Alignment Chart from D&D or the Renegade/Paragon like system from Mass Effect. This way it deals with more on how a player treat npcs and the reactions and attitudes of the npcs.

This actually is how it's supposed to to work though. How you interact with NPCs and the actions you take will have far more impact on your morality then any die rolls.

Personally I think you're overthinking it. These are supposed to be fluffy mechanics that can help add flavor to the campaign. Ditch them entirely and the game still runs, no problem. Incorporate them all on everyone... and you'll be futzing around with them instead of actually playing the game. Pick what each character needs to function. Luke as a forcee needs Morality. Han as a smuggler needs Ob. Leia as a Rebel needs Duty.