And we're starting to get articles about the book. We must be close!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/10/between-dark-and-light/

Hard to say from the write up, but it looks like the system is more or less unchanged from Beta.

Neat! Yeah by the time it got to Beta Morality was pretty well locked down.

Also I want an art book.

I don't know why I was expecting/hoping for something different than the Beta + Errata but unfortunately in that form it doesn't work for my groups.

I don't mind how Morality was portrayed in the beta, but I disliked how emotional strengths and weaknesses were just sort of... there. They're not used creatively or as a lever for the characters, like Obligation and Duty. I came up with a house system to involve them a bit more, but I'm hoping it's beefed up in the final product.

Still, can't wait. GenCon is coming soon.

I wasn't part of the beta, but this sure is sounding like something I want to run.

I don't know why I was expecting/hoping for something different than the Beta + Errata but unfortunately in that form it doesn't work for my groups.

How not so?

As stated by someone else, the Emotional Strengths and Weaknesses end up playing like mini motivations rather than parts of a "mechanic".

The biggest issue is "sleeping your way to paragon". If you do nothing bad, or conflicting in 6-8 sessions you are a full light side paragon. That is not really how it works.

Qui-Gon story-wise would BARELY be light side and is sometimes referred to as a "grey" Jedi. There is no way to really be Grey in this mechanic. You either do bad and go down (and even with this you have to do a ton of bad to go down) or you go up...

They never addressed this flaw that was brought up multiple times in the beta.

"Gray" Jedi is pure narrative anyway. There's no benefit other than a lighter conscious. So In that respect, it works fine. Though I don't recall much that would have Qui-Gon gaining mounds of conflict in such a way that would cause him to lose morality. He was unorthodox, but he was very much a Jedi.

I do agree about the "sleeping your way to paragon" and the comments on Emotional Strength and Weakness. But I also see it as a failure on my part if a player is gaining conflict simply by inaction. In that instance I would feel I am not presenting enough challenges to that character.

Yeah of the three - obligation, duty, conflict - the F&D is the weakest, least story telling one of the lot. Ah well - I still have my obligation to work with!

I do agree about the "sleeping your way to paragon" and the comments on Emotional Strength and Weakness. But I also see it as a failure on my part if a player is gaining conflict simply by inaction. In that instance I would feel I am not presenting enough challenges to that character.

The assumption is clearly that the F&D characters are doing good by default, since there are no anti-Conflict points, just the positive morality that comes from the die roll.

Now, back in the old beta days (tugs thoughtfully on beardless chin) I suggested that one could simply use a smaller die than a d10 if circumstances required, and of course an adventure that is short or otherwise lacking in "heroic" opportunities could be one of them. (Of course, no one expects this has or will make it into the official rules, requiring one-off dies, but since roleplayers often brandish d8's and d6's, I believe it retains some merit, nonetheless.)

Through about 15 sessions so far, my FaD PC has had a steady morality of about ~50. I found the current (beta) mechanic forces you to explicitly try for good or evil deeds. Simply not thinking about it, and playing, resulted in nearly no change. I think that is the way it should be: do specific acts to become paragon, do specific acts to become evil. Not actively trying for either resulting in a small change.

dfn, how did it not change? if you do nothing the roll at the end results in going up...

The only way around that is house ruling, per RAW, "you are doing it wrong". Whatever method your GM is using is ignoring some aspect of the Rules as Written and Rules as Intended.

@GM Knowledge Rhino: It is not that I do nothing, it is just that I did what was necessary. Sometimes it involved killing or torture, sometimes it didn't. Basically, I just didn't think about my morality actively. The GM thus far is very good at presenting dramatic choices, and I try to respond based on what makes sense (to me) for the situation and context, not based on whether I want to be a paragon or not (or want my morality up/down or not). Simply doing it that way resulted in a very small change over ~15 sessions.

dfn, I feel if I respond to that comment it will result in a misunderstanding (I rewrote this like 3 times already).

I guess, to me, as a GM it seems (based on your comment) I have to force (pun intended) this mechanic to work more than I have to with Duty or Obligation.

Obligation is easy to manage as a GM. Debts/Bounties/Favors/Addictions make sense.

Duty is even easier because basically expose to Alliance situations... let Players decide how to handle things... Duty goes up (or not).

Morality seems if everything isn't an episode of Law and Order, the whole mechanic fails.

Morality has no real consequences or advantages since you can literally go through a session and as long as you don't build up conflict you can snooze your way to paragon. In many cases you can go through an entire session and not touch on morality and conflict at all and end up almost being Paragon. In many cases we see how Luke's Anger or Ezra's Fear enhance thier force abilities making them stronger, but in game using the force has nothing to do with your emotional strengths or weaknesses which really hurts the system.

As stated by someone else, the Emotional Strengths and Weaknesses end up playing like mini motivations rather than parts of a "mechanic".

The biggest issue is "sleeping your way to paragon". If you do nothing bad, or conflicting in 6-8 sessions you are a full light side paragon. That is not really how it works.

Qui-Gon story-wise would BARELY be light side and is sometimes referred to as a "grey" Jedi. There is no way to really be Grey in this mechanic. You either do bad and go down (and even with this you have to do a ton of bad to go down) or you go up...

They never addressed this flaw that was brought up multiple times in the beta.

Qui-gon's "Grey-ness" stems from not following the party line of the Jedi Council, it's not an indicator of where he is on the Light-Dark scale of the Force.

I wasn't trying to debate grey Jedis and derail the thread, it was an example.

Attention! Attention! My supplier (who has been right so far) has the release date...July 31st!

Supplier Funagain.com

As stated by someone else, the Emotional Strengths and Weaknesses end up playing like mini motivations rather than parts of a "mechanic".

The biggest issue is "sleeping your way to paragon". If you do nothing bad, or conflicting in 6-8 sessions you are a full light side paragon. That is not really how it works.

The assumption is clearly that the F&D characters are doing good by default, since there are no anti-Conflict points, just the positive morality that comes from the die roll.

Now, back in the old beta days (tugs thoughtfully on beardless chin) I suggested that one could simply use a smaller die than a d10 if circumstances required, and of course an adventure that is short or otherwise lacking in "heroic" opportunities could be one of them. (Of course, no one expects this has or will make it into the official rules, requiring one-off dies, but since roleplayers often brandish d8's and d6's, I believe it retains some merit, nonetheless.)

These two posts pretty much sums up my only issues with the Morality system. I really like the idea of using a smaller die; I have to admit I'd never thought of that. As for emotional strengths and weaknesses my immediate thought was to simply change the mechanic a little bit, so that instead of rolling at the end of each session the players would keep accumulating Conflict until they triggered their emotioinal strength or weakness and only then make the roll. Seems to me that would keep the "Paragon express" on the slow track while encouraging players to roleplay their ES/W.

Yeah, I'd say Qui-Gon is probably more of a Light Side Paragon than most of the Jedi Council in terms of where he sits on the Morality scale. The fact he's willing to focus more on the spirit of the Jedi Code rather than the exact wording is why he's considered to be a maverick or "grey Jedi" by the more conservative members of the Jedi Order.

As for the Morality/Conflict system, I've found that it largely comes down to your players. I've had one group that acted (in the words of one player) "like a bunch of D&D Lawful Good Paladins" in regards to not wracking up huge amounts of Conflict; the biggest transgression was one PC (the guy that made the Paladins crack) decapitating a jerkass noble that had crippled another PC in a 'saber fight (sliced off the 2nd PC's off-hand), earning him 12 Conflict and pretty much taking him out of the running for being a LS Paragon for a bit.

Also, we don't know how the mechanics portion of Conflict resolution at the end of a session has been changed. For all we know, it could have been tweaked to be "end of the adventure," thus giving PCs more opportunities to generate Conflict. But at the same time, if the player is willing to avoid earning conflict and generally act like a proper Jedi should be acting and avoiding the many things that are Standard Operating Procedure for many D&D (and likely EotE) groups, I don't think that's a failing of the system. And if the entire group wants to act like a bunch of LG paladins and generally take their cues from older Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon on how to act and thus avoid generating Conflict in the first place, I don't see that as a problem. In fact, I see that as a good thing, as I've born witness to far too many "murder hobo" groups in numerous RPG sessions that having a party of actual heroes is fantastic.

Personally, I always took more issue in having a lightsaber style for every attribute; it felt really forced. Clunky and pointlessly silly. What? Your personality and intellect is somehow making you fight better then a person who has condictione done themselves physically and mentally? With all due respect, lightsaber ranks exist for that reason to have a character that understands despite lacking the physical conditioning of others (dooku was one of the best, despite being underwealminf both in personal agility and strength). the attributes themselves should only influence other abilities.

The morality argument is interesting. In my opinion, it only works if your players are either dealing into it to weave a story or they are presented constantly with hard choices. I personally can't stand Jedi, but despite having 3 force sensitives, our campaign has remained firmly lodged in the edge/AOR mindset, thus it's still about the desperate heists against the backdrop of the universe.

Caveat: I've not playtested F&D beta or anything. What if instead of rolling for Morality at the end of every session, only rolling when conflict is generated? So if a character goes through a session with 0 conflict, simply don't roll. Thoughts?

Edit: I like Dono's thought of making it the end of the adventure instead. That works too.

I'll say I avoid conflict the plague, and the price I typically pay for it is that I won't use Dark Pips.

Your friend is falling down a cliff roll Move to save him.

*rolls 3 dice, rolls 3 dark pips*

...Sorry, bro, but it looks like it's your time to become one with the Force.

"You seriously let my character die."

'Fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Miss them do not. Mourn them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is. I am therefore letting go of everything I fear to lose.'

"...I don't care if it's G-Canon, d*** move bro."

Caveat: I've not playtested F&D beta or anything. What if instead of rolling for Morality at the end of every session, only rolling when conflict is generated? So if a character goes through a session with 0 conflict, simply don't roll. Thoughts?

Edit: I like Dono's thought of making it the end of the adventure instead. That works too.

Nah, no conflict = you were a goodie two shoes and your morality will go up big time. So not rolling would screw a player out of a well earned morality boost.

I'll say I avoid conflict the plague, and the price I typically pay for it is that I won't use Dark Pips.

Your friend is falling down a cliff roll Move to save him.

*rolls 3 dice, rolls 3 dark pips*

...Sorry, bro, but it looks like it's your time to become one with the Force.

"You seriously let my character die."

'Fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Miss them do not. Mourn them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is. I am therefore letting go of everything I fear to lose.'

"...I don't care if it's G-Canon, d*** move bro."

You should be lucky your GM hasn't noticed that outlook on things is just as likely to get you conflict, possibly more then just flipping the pips....

Actually, that GM gave me a flat out +10 morality bonus doing that.

"...You've cited Yoda correctly. That's exactly what your supposed to do."

His rule is "If you can back up your action with something Yoda, Obi Wan, or another famous jedi actually said in a movie (Anakin doesn't count, but Luke does....) you gain morality."