Dev Diary on the Morality system is up

By Desslok, in Star Wars: Force and Destiny RPG

I have not been part of the FnD beta, but wanted to ask a morality question:

if a Force user with Morality does nothing while the rest of the party do bad deeds, does the Force User gain conflict?

i ask because for a mixed party with Edge and Age PC's this could make the Morality mechanic much more interesting than a party of Force using Paladins who all do "the Right thing"

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."

I would have thought that letting a good friend die when drawing on the Dark Side could have saved them would cause a lot of future personal anguish and torment. i understand that Yoda said that, but isn't it more about being unable to prevent some loss and not mourning the ones you can not save. I would think there is a very big difference between being unable to prevent a loss and being in a position to prevent a death.

edit.

not that i dont respect your and your GM's decision (dont know if the other player liked it though!)

I am going to go one step further and simply state that both that person and the gm was wrong. Jedi don't form connections generally and thus wouldn't have gone as far as to make friends in principle, associates yes, friends that you would risk your lives for? No. That was ultimately the Jedi weakness, that they are out of touch with the greater Galaxy.

More percifically,the player in question should have gained IMMENSE conflict for letting a friend, an important associate die when with a little more strain and a touch of emotion that fate could have been prevented entirely. And it is also part of the Jedi code that the Jedi is a servant to the Republic, was he who died not a part of that Republic? The only exception being that the Jedi is not allowed to interfere against laws or tradition (thus skavery on tattooein was something qui-gon didn't directly appose.) but clearly that fellow was subject to no such suggestions. All you did was deny responsibility of the incident just because you didn't want to gain one conflict, that is not only extremely selfish on your characters part, but it is metagaming for being a silly ls paladin, and personally I think that dm was incorrect in rewarding that behaviour. That might have been a valid in character justification, but it should only be that, denial for murder.

Then finally, was everyone at the table satisfied with what you did? This game is a cooperative game first and foremost, if not everyone is having fun, or someone is directly interfering with someone having fun, then that game is functioning wrong, despite what the machanics of the game state.

I hope the poster doesn't mind, just playing devils accocate, having seen many games end up like this in dnd I have first hand experience of player conflict getting out of hand and interfering with fun around the table. So I feel slightly best towards that.

If Yoda had an epiphany, he hadn't jumped to broomstick to being in tune with Luke as of 36+ ABY. He was still mostly himself in the OT.

Old habits die hard? He thought "Perhaps this time will be different"? He hadn't realized the depths of his wrongness? He managed to convince himself over the last 20 years that he was right?

Until December gets here, Legends is all we have to go on for what the future post ABY 4 is like.

As such, till an alternative presents itself, Legends is what I'm going to use.

I have not been part of the FnD beta, but wanted to ask a morality question:

if a Force user with Morality does nothing while the rest of the party do bad deeds, does the Force User gain conflict?

i ask because for a mixed party with Edge and Age PC's this could make the Morality mechanic much more interesting than a party of Force using Paladins who all do "the Right thing"

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."

I would have thought that letting a good friend die when drawing on the Dark Side could have saved them would cause a lot of future personal anguish and torment. i understand that Yoda said that, but isn't it more about being unable to prevent some loss and not mourning the ones you can not save. I would think there is a very big difference between being unable to prevent a loss and being in a position to prevent a death.

edit.

not that i dont respect your and your GM's decision (dont know if the other player liked it though!)

I am going to go one step further and simply state that both that person and the gm was wrong. Jedi don't form connections generally and thus wouldn't have gone as far as to make friends in principle, associates yes, friends that you would risk your lives for? No. That was ultimately the Jedi weakness, that they are out of touch with the greater Galaxy.

More percifically,the player in question should have gained IMMENSE conflict for letting a friend, an important associate die when with a little more strain and a touch of emotion that fate could have been prevented entirely. And it is also part of the Jedi code that the Jedi is a servant to the Republic, was he who died not a part of that Republic? The only exception being that the Jedi is not allowed to interfere against laws or tradition (thus skavery on tattooein was something qui-gon didn't directly appose.) but clearly that fellow was subject to no such suggestions. All you did was deny responsibility of the incident just because you didn't want to gain one conflict, that is not only extremely selfish on your characters part, but it is metagaming for being a silly ls paladin, and personally I think that dm was incorrect in rewarding that behaviour. That might have been a valid in character justification, but it should only be that, denial for murder.

Then finally, was everyone at the table satisfied with what you did? This game is a cooperative game first and foremost, if not everyone is having fun, or someone is directly interfering with someone having fun, then that game is functioning wrong, despite what the machanics of the game state.

I hope the poster doesn't mind, just playing devils accocate, having seen many games end up like this in dnd I have first hand experience of player conflict getting out of hand and interfering with fun around the table. So I feel slightly best towards that.

The weakness of this argument is that it boils down to 'ends justify the means.' It's the old Paladin scenario of 'I can save a thousand lives if I kill this baby.'

No, Paladin. Do not kill the baby. No matter how many people it saves.

Hey guys, in terms of Angelalex242, at this point he's proven to not being open to the idea that a POV other than his could actually be wrong, and is pretty much brushing right past some very valid points that other posters in this thread have made to continue talking in circles in spite of the holes that have been punched in his presumption, almost to the point of being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative.

Rather than let this thread devolve into an unnecessary flame war, probably best that rather than trying to engage him in an intelligent discussion he has zero interest having, you simply ignore him. For me, he's proven to have about as much to usefully contribute to a discussion as ErikB/Slypheed did on it's best day, so I'm taking my own advice where Angie is concerned and just ignoring him from here on out instead of wasting any more time on him.

To Desslok's credit, if you really want to see how far the Jedi had fallen just before the events of RotS, check out the new "Dark Disciple" novel. That's a pretty crummy Paladin Screwjob for you.

Just picked that book up from the library, too. Timing is everything!

More percifically,the player in question should have gained IMMENSE conflict for letting a friend, an important associate die when with a little more strain and a touch of emotion that fate could have been prevented entirely.

What I find funny are all the people that go " NO DARK SIDE PIPS EVER! NO CONFLICT EVER! " when the devs have repeatedly said that's not how the system was intended to be used. The PCs are occasionally suppose to use the Bad Pips along with the Good Pips.

Hey guys, in terms of Angelalex242, at this point he's proven to not being open to the idea that a POV other than his could actually be wrong, and is pretty much brushing right past some very valid points that other posters in this thread have made to continue talking in circles in spite of the holes that have been punched in his presumption, almost to the point of being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative.

Rather than let this thread devolve into an unnecessary flame war, probably best that rather than trying to engage him in an intelligent discussion he has zero interest having, you simply ignore him. For me, he's proven to have about as much to usefully contribute to a discussion as ErikB/Slypheed did on it's best day, so I'm taking my own advice where Angie is concerned and just ignoring him from here on out instead of wasting any more time on him.

Translation: I'm right, you're wrong, and I hate people that don't agree with me, so la la la I'm not listening to you anymore.

Way to keep an open mind, bro. I have a 'certain point of view.' So do you. Respect that.

After all, few here agree with me, so had I the same view you did, I'd never post here again.

Edited by Angelalex242

Sometimes you do have to choose the lesser of two evils in order to do something. This shouldn't, by any means, be a regular thing but it can happen. The game is designed around giving in or using dark side pips occasionally, but not regularly unless that is your intent. You do not automatically go dark if you use dark side pips or commit certain acts. You may get conflict through action or inaction depending on the situation. How much in each case may vary depending on the circumstances. Some will do something knowing full well they will garner some conflict because they feel the result is worth it.

Angelalex242 is entitled to their opinion. I do, though, find it funny and interesting when new forumites show up thinking they are the be all and end all because of their own experience. For those of us that have been around since the EotE beta, we have had the chance to hash things out together which does breed a certain grand knowledge of the game. Something that others that have been off in their own world playing have not had the benefit of. I realize that his "holier than thou" attitude does aggravate people, but maybe he will settle down and join the community or maybe he will choose to leave as others have chosen to do.

And as the great and powerful HappyDaze always says "You can ignore!" But I don't find that nearly as enjoyable.

Sometimes you do have to choose the lesser of two evils in order to do something. This shouldn't, by any means, be a regular thing but it can happen. The game is designed around giving in or using dark side pips occasionally, but not regularly unless that is your intent. You do not automatically go dark if you use dark side pips or commit certain acts. You may get conflict through action or inaction depending on the situation. How much in each case may vary depending on the circumstances. Some will do something knowing full well they will garner some conflict because they feel the result is worth it.

Angelalex242 is entitled to their opinion. I do, though, find it funny and interesting when new forumites show up thinking they are the be all and end all because of their own experience. For those of us that have been around since the EotE beta, we have had the chance to hash things out together which does breed a certain grand knowledge of the game. Something that others that have been off in their own world playing have not had the benefit of. I realize that his "holier than thou" attitude does aggravate people, but maybe he will settle down and join the community or maybe he will choose to leave as others have chosen to do.

And as the great and powerful HappyDaze always says "You can ignore!" But I don't find that nearly as enjoyable.

I'll be honest, much of the reason I rate Force Rating at the high numbers I put it at is because I presume those movie heroes (except Anakin) wouldn't spend a Dark Side Point if their lives or anyone else's depended on it.

I'll be honest, much of the reason I rate Force Rating at the high numbers I put it at is because I presume those movie heroes (except Anakin) wouldn't spend a Dark Side Point if their lives or anyone else's depended on it.

See. And I don't agree with that statement at all. I think characters in the movies do dip into the dark side when they need to, but not regularly. I don't think they can avoid it being only human or whatever species they are. And without a consensus you will never have any kind of stats that everyone can agree with.

Well...there's definitely a point when Luke uses Dark Side Points on the Death Star 2.

"If you will not turn to the Dark Side...then perhaps she will..."

"NOOOO!"

But it doesn't seem like he uses them otherwise.

(Lucky for Luke, ol' Sidious couldn't keep his mouth shut, and, well, his approval and Luke's own robotic hand reminded him what path he was on real quick.)

Edited by Angelalex242

Just speaking as a person who has neither read the FaD Beta rules or studied SW for decades I must say this has been a very interesting conversation. It seems that as in any RPG every table has different opinions on this, and so long as everyone at that table agree things are fine.

When the CRB drops and everyone has had time to digest it would be great to have a thread for players and GM's to post examples from games of PC's making those hard choices and the Conflict that resulted from it, not for others to shred with arguments of "your wrong" but just so the community can get a feel for the Meta Game.

I

I'll be honest, much of the reason I rate Force Rating at the high numbers I put it at is because I presume those movie heroes (except Anakin) wouldn't spend a Dark Side Point if their lives or anyone else's depended on it.

But that's not how the system is designed. The devs have said as much.

...I must also add I've never spent a Dark Side Point when one was rolled. I just let the power fail and move on.

Maybe the Devs have said otherwise, but I was under the impression in every game I've played thus far spending DSPs made one a terrible Jedi.

If picking the dark pips doesn't come with a heavy cost, why even roll? Being able to use them (on more sides of the die) should be the lure and the method to gauge how much of a paragon you are, not a jarring 'well, I have saved up 90 points of goodness, now I can kill some babies' track.

Well, I also figure Yoda has something like a morality of 150 or more (Unless it's capped at 100, I didn't see a cap yet....) and theoretically has a huge cushion of morality to fall back on.

And yet, he wouldn't be caught dead using the Dark Side.

Conversely, Sidious has a morality of -100 or something ridiculous like that (Unless it's capped at 0) and wouldn't dream of using a lightside point.

(Anakin/Vader is happy to use both sides as needed...hence why he falls...and hence why he's redeemed. ESB onward, he's burning all kinds of light side points and generating reverse Conflict (Redemption) like mad)

Removed.

Edited by Donovan Morningfire

I mean, there is also the theory that Obi Wan and Yoda weren't actually grooming Luke to be a Jedi and restart the order, that they were just training him to be a weapon against Vader and the Emperor, and probably expected him to fail seeing as they, two Jedi Masters, could not defeat Palps&Vader on their own.

On topic: I like the Morality & Conflict System out of the beta, I disagree that you can "sleep your way to Paragon". Inaction has just as much consequence as action. You choose not to use that force power to help someone because you only rolled dark-side pips? Guess what, you're getting conflict because you didn't intervene, and spoiler alert, its probably going to be more conflict than what you would've earned by using the dark side pips to complete the action. I think it basically comes down to how the group wants to handle it, one of the things I love about the FFG system is that it is very flexible and you can bend/mod it to fit your style and story.

It does kind of break into personal opinions as to what is "good" and "evil" but that is the beauty of star wars in that everything can be seen "from a certain point of view". Which brings up the old "Paladin Trap" of D&D is what do you do with a child of an evil race, to which the answer is: You retire the character, as they adopt the child and raise them or at the very least, you bring the child to a temple/fortress/church/castle of your Paladin order and have them raised there. And then you tell you're GM he is an ******* for creating Deus Ex Machina situations to try and bring 21st century morals into what should be a medieval style game.

Well, let's not do conspiracy theories on Yoda and Obi Wan. I'd need to see hard evidence they were insincere in their hopes for Luke before I buy them as that cold.

And, well, things like 'the correct choice' for what to do when your friend falls off a cliff and you roll only dark side points should, for the sake of everyone's sanity, be hashed out before it actually comes up in game.

It's not an argument to have at the gaming table. (In a similar vein, it is very wise to hash out with your Paladin player what his Paladin Code is and what he's expected to do in no win situations before the first die is rolled. Paladin Orders are aware of 'no win situations' and being LAWFUL Good, they have standard procedures on what their Paladins are supposed to do. Moreover, their Gods have standard procedures for that kind of thing, and the priests are sure to have asked what the procedure is.)

It's a valid theory presented in the EU in "I, Jedi" by Corran (I think, I could be wrong on this one)

What it really boils down to as far as how you use morality/conflict, is -how do you want to use it in your game-. Which is one of the great things about FFG Star Wars.

Morality does have a low cap of 1 and a high cap of 100. Yoda isn't totally pure, he still has arrogant thoughts and feels negative emotions occasionally. The final episodes of The Clone Wars show this, and his struggle to acknowledge and overcome his "dark side."

Totally respect you never using the dark pips though, very awesome. But you're following the Jedi ideal rather than the reality.

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."

Letting someone die is different than moving on after their loss. I'd give out Conflict for that, probably more than would be generated from just using the dark side to save them. It's Conflict, it's internal, it's the result of even having to face that situation.

It's also not the important bit. Conflict is simply potential, the Morality roll at the end of the session is that actual change that occurs. Maybe you roll well, the experience drives you to be a greater Jedi, to be strong enough to save everyone next time. Or maybe you roll poorly, and the guilt takes its toll on you, regardless of how many times you repeat Yoda's words to yourself.

If EU terms work better, you're Atris from KOTOR 2. So determined to rebuild the Jedi at any cost that you don't even realize you've fallen to the dark side. It is such a quiet thing , to fall . But far more terrible is to admit it.

Edited by Revanchist7

If picking the dark pips doesn't come with a heavy cost, why even roll? Being able to use them (on more sides of the die) should be the lure and the method to gauge how much of a paragon you are, not a jarring 'well, I have saved up 90 points of goodness, now I can kill some babies' track.

Because the temptation is there. You roll a couple of dark side points - no biggie. You needed to keep your friend from falling off a cliff. It cost you a little, but you saved your friend. Next time, you already spent some dark side, it didn't hurt - go ahead on this unnecessary roll. That cost a little more, but it's nothing you can't handle. Then there's that time where you use the dark side for nothing special and suddenly you need to use it for something important and that's where the fall starts.