1. I don't like a mechanic that allows to you tally points...help an orphan here, torture a thug there...I just don't see the moral question as a game of chits, nor is justice really a scale. As posted in a different thread, you shouldn't be able to balance murder with a lot of helping little old ladies across the speedway.

I agree with this. But I'd be interested to know how you handled such a thing as part of a game. How does a player redeem their PC if they can't do it via doing good? The only thing that I can think of that works is to tie the redemption to the actual wrong in a very in-character way. Murder someone? Then to get the Morality points back, you have to help their dependents, help complete things wanted to achieve, that sort of thing.

2. I don't like a mechanic that imposes a state of mind on the character that the player did not intend. IMHO, the decision to use dark pips is sufficiently penalized with Strain + DP.

I agree with the principle, but I don't think the system does this. If a player rolls dark side pips, that's not saying that their character must think dark thoughts, but it is saying that they weren't able to achieve what they wanted (a standard part of an RPG) and that they can give in to the Dark Side for the sake of power, if they choose. Emphasis on choose, there. Nothing imposes a mindset on them by force. But any Dark Side mechanic has to have a tie to in-character attitudes / behaviour. I don't see how it could be meaningful without that.

one could argue that if the purpose is ethical, the refusal to use dark pips should cause Conflict because you are willingly avoiding suffering (Strain + DP) instead of doing what's right.

This seems to me to be confusing things on the player level with things on the character level. The character is not refusing to use dark side pips, there's no such thing to them. The question is whether they are willing to tap into their anger or fear to find the power they need. The Emperor tells Luke to give into the anger and use their hatred to win, but Luke refuses, even though he knows he is fighting for his life and to save his friends and the rebellion (all presumably ethically good things he can achieve by defeating Vader and killing the emperor). Luke doesn't gain conflict for refusing to use the dark side in this instance. But he probably did when he gave in to the emperor's instruction to "strike me down". The Emperor knew what he was doing. I don't think it would be fair for Luke to drift towards the dark side for NOT giving into his hatred which is what not spending dark side pips would normally represent (or similar emotions).

Right, but over the course of a session the pip results clearly favour the dark side. I think it's fine, it just puts the whole Strain/DP flip/dark side issue into a different context. I'm more certain now that I would never penalize the player with Conflict for spending dark pips provided they spent the Strain and flipped the DP.

In my games if a player spends dark side pips equal to the light side pips they spend then there is no conflict, only strain and destiny costs.

If a player spends any dark side pips and does a darkside action with the results then I have more conflict for the fact they are doing a dark action while using the darkside.

...not that I'm at all convinced Luke would've been tainted for striking Palpatine down. He claims he's unarmed. Sure. Sure he is. He's only the most powerful Sith Lord in history. He's about as 'unarmed' as Yoda. Perhaps less so due to Sith Lightning.

That is, I'm not convinced there's any conflict to be had there unless he's using a DSP to do it.

But the Force die does statistically work out to be even. Sadly, it still has that 'power incontinence' problem if you keep choosing the 'do not' section of do or do not.

How does a player redeem their PC if they can't do it via doing good?

They can, but it requires considerable self-sacrifice. The example I was using was murder vs "small acts of kindness", and it seems like with the RAW mechanics you don't even have to do that...just "be", don't make too many waves, and you'll become a paragon.

But any Dark Side mechanic has to have a tie to in-character attitudes / behaviour. I don't see how it could be meaningful without that.

I think it already does with the Strain + DP.

This seems to me to be confusing things on the player level with things on the character level. The character is not refusing to use dark side pips, there's no such thing to them. The question is whether they are willing to tap into their anger or fear to find the power they need.

A reasonable point I'll have to consider.

How does a player redeem their PC if they can't do it via doing good?

They can, but it requires considerable self-sacrifice. The example I was using was murder vs "small acts of kindness", and it seems like with the RAW mechanics you don't even have to do that...just "be", don't make too many waves, and you'll become a paragon.

Ultimately though, that's what being in-tuned with the Force is. You don't actively hurt people and you help out people in immediate need around you. Hell, that's all the Jedi Council does. Sit, teach now and then, and delegate missions. All Obi-Wan did is sit in a hut and make sure Luke didn't get himself killed, and Yoda hung out in a swamp.

I think the confusion Morality/Conflict causes is it uses certain terms and links people to the idea of it being a good and evil scale, much like ones used in various video games, that acts as a gauge of how good of a person you are. Which it really isn't; it's closer to just being a mood ring.

I think a huge part of it is merely perspective and playstyle.

Just like Duty and Obligation, Morality is really a disposable additional mechanic. You get as much or as little as you want out of it. Unlike Ob and Duty though, it seems everyone is more willing to engage it, probably because it's the easiest to factor into play....

The 1 conflict for flipping pips is there to add a touch of motivation and color, but yeah, the Dpoint and strain will usually be a bigger deal. And one conflict isn't that big compared to the other stuff listed on pg 220. The tough nugget is on GM to consider the chart on 220, include it, and (as this is Star Wars) place the player in situations that will test them. Not even gonna pretend that's easy. I have enough trouble keeping players on story sometimes. Trying to formulate encounters with moral tugs adds yet another layer to the GM planning challenges.

Of course then you have the complicated mess of putting the character to the test while avoiding making things a Pally hunt. You gotta put Anakin in the sand people camp, give him the tools to go bonkers, present the motivation, and hope the player is willing to turn the camp into coldcuts instead of just saying "nah, I want the Paragon boost. I walk away and cry like a baby."

Adding Herp to Derp, you also will inevitably get mixed up into other "morality" systems. Mass Effect let you choose your moral path... but it was usually heavy handed. I can make the most nuanced moral choice encounter, finely tuned to the story and character, presented it in a brilliant way, and allowing dozens of possible play options.... and there's still gonna be that player that thinks they got screwed because I didn't give him him 2 choices, one highlighted red, the other highlighted blue.

I suspect as the final core starts showing up in the wild, we'll see this discussion pop up every couple of months. Hopefully a few will actually present some interesting stuff.

@ the OP: I'm confused, you started the thread stating the dark side is stronger (see the title) because you thought the force die favors dark side points (Which is patently false, as KnasserII demonstrated), but above you state you don't see using dark side pips as using the force? I mean, if you don't see using dark side pips as dark side use, what does it matter how many dark side pips appear on the force die?

Also, I see the accumulation of conflict mechanically necessary for using the dark side pips because a destiny flip and strain really isn't enough. Strain is far too easily recovered in the game to be considered limited given how frequent adv are rolled and a 1:1 recovery strain, and destiny is too much of a party resource to see it as a "personal penalty" for dark side use. Besides, giving the GM one up/downgrade on a roll simply doesn't make that big of a difference in > 90% of instances. Conflict is needed to represent that using dark side pips is bad, or at least risky, for the character .

The problem I see with the morality system is how easy it seems to build morality. I haven't run a F&D game yet, but I fundamentally dislike that morality would seem to monotonically go up over play sessions, since characters can very easily avoid generating conflict (Ghostofman's "paragon boost" example is a perfect example). If a character is not drawing on the dark side, but also not actively doing good, I don't see why the player's morality should increase by 1d10 every game. Yes, Yoda sat in a swamp and Obi-wan sat in a hut, but they didn't get to be paragons doing that, they were paragons prior to going into hiding, and their moralities just didn't change as they did nothing.

I'll play the RAW at first, but I suspect that I'll limit the amount of morality they can gain during the session based on the their RP, or give out +/- morality for actions on the spot and only allow the conflict roll to decrease morality.

Yes it's problematic that we're "counting morality with chits", but in a game like this, there's really no better way to reliably track this kind of quality. Hit/wound points are a pretty poor method for tracking physical condition, but we all got over that years ago. And unintentional consequences regardless of mindset really is how temptation, and theryby the dark side, works.

...not that I'm at all convinced Luke would've been tainted for striking Palpatine down. He claims he's unarmed. Sure. Sure he is. He's only the most powerful Sith Lord in history. He's about as 'unarmed' as Yoda. Perhaps less so due to Sith Lightning.

That is, I'm not convinced there's any conflict to be had there unless he's using a DSP to do it.

I completely disagree. It's about intentions , not necessarily about absolute truth. If Luke was, in his mind, striking down an unarmed opponent, he would be garnering massive conflict. That is simply the way of it. It later came to light that Palpatine was "dangerous," and of course it's possible that Luke would feel a sort of justification or vindication, but the fact remains that he had been willing to kill an unarmed old man, and had actually tried to do so under those pretenses. And Palpatine knew this. He knew he was in no real danger, so there was absolutely every reason to try and tempt Luke into killing him so as to get him to turn further to the dark side.

Look at the way Luke behaves in RotJ:

• Force-choking the Gamorreans
• Brazenly using the Force to try and influence Jabba (overconfidence)
• Threatening Jabba with death, thrice.
• Killing off Jabba's entire entourage by blowing up his sail barge (but they were bad guys!)
• Tries to off Palpatine
• Attacks Vader in a rage

All motivated by his love for his friends. What Obi-Wan told him was true: "[Your feelings] do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor." Luke's attachment to his friends nearly proved to be his downfall, until the moment of realization about what it actually meant to be a Jedi.

But the Force die does statistically work out to be even. Sadly, it still has that 'power incontinence' problem if you keep choosing the 'do not' section of do or do not.

I would say that's no one's fault, except for the person who chooses to "do not." And rolling with 1 Force Die provides no more "power incontinence" than someone with a small skill pool experiences "skill incontinence." Raise up the Force rating, and you'll see some more reliability! IMO, it is not a problem: it is a feature, and it's true to the source.

Edit: spelling is fun!

@ the OP: I'm confused, you started the thread stating the dark side is stronger (see the title) because you thought the force die favors dark side points (Which is patently false, as KnasserII demonstrated), but above you state you don't see using dark side pips as using the force? I mean, if you don't see using dark side pips as dark side use, what does it matter how many dark side pips appear on the force die?

Also, I see the accumulation of conflict mechanically necessary for using the dark side pips because a destiny flip and strain really isn't enough. Strain is far too easily recovered in the game to be considered limited given how frequent adv are rolled and a 1:1 recovery strain, and destiny is too much of a party resource to see it as a "personal penalty" for dark side use. Besides, giving the GM one up/downgrade on a roll simply doesn't make that big of a difference in > 90% of instances. Conflict is needed to represent that using dark side pips is bad, or at least risky, for the character .

The problem I see with the morality system is how easy it seems to build morality. I haven't run a F&D game yet, but I fundamentally dislike that morality would seem to monotonically go up over play sessions, since characters can very easily avoid generating conflict (Ghostofman's "paragon boost" example is a perfect example). If a character is not drawing on the dark side, but also not actively doing good, I don't see why the player's morality should increase by 1d10 every game. Yes, Yoda sat in a swamp and Obi-wan sat in a hut, but they didn't get to be paragons doing that, they were paragons prior to going into hiding, and their moralities just didn't change as they did nothing.

I'll play the RAW at first, but I suspect that I'll limit the amount of morality they can gain during the session based on the their RP, or give out +/- morality for actions on the spot and only allow the conflict roll to decrease morality.

Yes it's problematic that we're "counting morality with chits", but in a game like this, there's really no better way to reliably track this kind of quality. Hit/wound points are a pretty poor method for tracking physical condition, but we all got over that years ago. And unintentional consequences regardless of mindset really is how temptation, and theryby the dark side, works.

From the use I've had out of it... it can work. When my players didn't worry about it and just played... it was fine. When my players developed an interesting character and rolled with it, it worked pretty well.

Where it hasn't worked so well was when the players actively tried to leverage it for benefits over character development.

Also depending on how you run your campaigns I could see it having issues. I typically run module-style adventures, but I'm playing in a more Sandbox campaign now and can really see how it can get odd in the slower segments where the GM is trying to keep us busy while figuring out what direction we're going to go next.

You're mention of Yoda on Dagobah does suggest a possible tweak though. I tend to award XP by Adventure or Act instead of by Session. My games are online these days and there's some nights we accomplish more then others, so doling it out in bulk at the end of a critical story arc ensures the Adventurers get XP for adventuring, and not for a prolonged shopping trip and mission brief. On Dagobah Yoda's morality didn't change any more than his XP went up because he wasn't doing anything.

If you're having trouble with Morality going up too fast then a partial solution might be to take a similar approach and roll against Conflict totals by adventure instead of by session... that would make it more challenging to manage conflict while still keeping largely in line with the system and intent. That 1 conflict from some petty offense would weigh a lot more if you have to stack it with 3 others and the 4 conflict from a necessary evil over the course of a full adventure worth of encounters....

Just a thought...

From the use I've had out of it... it can work. When my players didn't worry about it and just played... it was fine. When my players developed an interesting character and rolled with it, it worked pretty well.

Where it hasn't worked so well was when the players actively tried to leverage it for benefits over character development.

Also depending on how you run your campaigns I could see it having issues. I typically run module-style adventures, but I'm playing in a more Sandbox campaign now and can really see how it can get odd in the slower segments where the GM is trying to keep us busy while figuring out what direction we're going to go next.

You're mention of Yoda on Dagobah does suggest a possible tweak though. I tend to award XP by Adventure or Act instead of by Session. My games are online these days and there's some nights we accomplish more then others, so doling it out in bulk at the end of a critical story arc ensures the Adventurers get XP for adventuring, and not for a prolonged shopping trip and mission brief. On Dagobah Yoda's morality didn't change any more than his XP went up because he wasn't doing anything.

If you're having trouble with Morality going up too fast then a partial solution might be to take a similar approach and roll against Conflict totals by adventure instead of by session... that would make it more challenging to manage conflict while still keeping largely in line with the system and intent. That 1 conflict from some petty offense would weigh a lot more if you have to stack it with 3 others and the 4 conflict from a necessary evil over the course of a full adventure worth of encounters....

Just a thought...

In the first sentence, I'm assuming "it" is the morality system. So, again, I don't have first hand experience with it, but you seem to be describing one of the possible situations I would be concerned about: improving morality from, as you put it, "a prolonged shopping trip". Essentially, reward for no effort, or actually avoiding effort.

About 2 years ago, I moved about 200 mi from my regular gaming group, and then 4 months ago I moved 3,000 miles from them, so I don't expect to be getting a game together anytime in the immediate future. HOWEVER, that group had a serious issue staying on track, and there's no way I could have possibly been doling out rewards every play session. This system doesn't encourage the players to move along, either, which makes things worse. I've simply never liked the way this system uses "end of session" as a milestone, and I think the reasoning for it (players should get constant rewards) is pretty cynical.

And there's the issue where you acknowledge that the system doesn't work well when the players leverage it. I'm sure it works well everyone behaves and "plays right" (most systems do), but I really prefer a robust system, that works well even when some players don't behave. This system for morality just doesn't seem to be robust enough to my liking, and I really think it's a failing of the system, than of the players. Some simple changes to the game, like XP/Conflict resolution at the end of the adventure, goes a long way to resolving the issues.

Anyway, tl; dr: I'm sure it can work when everyone behaves, but the issues really show up when they don't and game the system. And I really don't think it's fair to lay that completely at the players feet when there are simple rule changes that would go a long way to mitigate the problems.

...not that I'm at all convinced Luke would've been tainted for striking Palpatine down. He claims he's unarmed. Sure. Sure he is. He's only the most powerful Sith Lord in history. He's about as 'unarmed' as Yoda. Perhaps less so due to Sith Lightning.

That is, I'm not convinced there's any conflict to be had there unless he's using a DSP to do it.

I completely disagree. It's about intentions , not necessarily about absolute truth. If Luke was, in his mind, striking down an unarmed opponent, he would be garnering massive conflict. That is simply the way of it. It later came to light that Palpatine was "dangerous," and of course it's possible that Luke would feel a sort of justification or vindication, but the fact remains that he had been willing to kill an unarmed old man, and had actually tried to do so under those pretenses. And Palpatine knew this. He knew he was in no real danger, so there was absolutely every reason to try and tempt Luke into killing him so as to get him to turn further to the dark side.

Look at the way Luke behaves in RotJ:

• Force-choking the Gamorreans
• Brazenly using the Force to try and influence Jabba (overconfidence)
• Threatening Jabba with death, thrice.
• Killing off Jabba's entire entourage by blowing up his sail barge (but they were bad guys!)
• Tries to off Palpatine
• Attacks Vader in a rage

All motivated by his love for his friends. What Obi-Wan told him was true: "[Your feelings] do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor." Luke's attachment to his friends nearly proved to be his downfall, until the moment of realization about what it actually meant to be a Jedi.

But the Force die does statistically work out to be even. Sadly, it still has that 'power incontinence' problem if you keep choosing the 'do not' section of do or do not.

I would say that's no one's fault, except for the person who chooses to "do not." And rolling with 1 Force Die provides no more "power incontinence" than someone with a small skill pool experiences "skill incontinence." Raise up the Force rating, and you'll see some more reliability! IMO, it is not a problem: it is a feature, and it's true to the source.

Edit: spelling is fun!

....I'll grant that. Yet the road to hell Mustafar is paved with good intentions and using DSP to activate them. And Luke was kinda slipping there, wasn't he? Not that I'm sure another Jedi would've treated Jabba and friends any differently. Can't imagine Mace Windu or Shaak Ti approaching that any different. And to Luke's credit, the death threats were him trying to give Jabba every opportunity to bow out of the whole 'executing him' thing. I imagine Luke might've left Jabba alone had he just named a price for Han. Luke simply would've paid it through Leia's bank account, presumably. But, ya know. When the other guy's actively trying to kill you, self defense is a thing. Basically, considering he was dealing with a criminal, Luke did his best to use all nonviolent options first. Lucky Mara Arica was a little late getting on the barge...

Not even convinced Leia got any conflict for choking Jabba. She didn't exactly have another option there. (Leia would have a morality rating, to be sure.)

He does slip on the 2nd Death Star, but...well, anyone would slip staring Palpatine in the eye. Again, greatest Sith Lord of all time, bar none. Luke kept checking himself and trying to recenter, but Sidious is a Dark Side Nexus just by standing there. And he did ultimately spare his father. Which proceeded to save his life not 2 minutes later.

Anyway, tl; dr: I'm sure it can work when everyone behaves, but the issues really show up when they don't and game the system. And I really don't think it's fair to lay that completely at the players feet when there are simple rule changes that would go a long way to mitigate the problems.

I don' think it's so much a matter of behaving and laying it at the players feet, all game systems do that to an extent the moment they let the players min/max rather than make a character that can do more than swing a sword. When the players weren't thinking about Morality any more then they would Obligation or Duty, it worked just fine for the most part. And like Ob/Duty when the players really wanted to engage it, it worked amazing.

I think it's more the inflated expectation of Morality's importance to the larger picture. That's kinda what I was getting at about the players trying to push for Paragon status. What the system mechanically does isn't all that big. What it represents... that's the big part, at least to some.

The benefit of getting Paragon status, while nice... isn't that nice. If anything it's similar to activated duty/obligation. Heck the players can pretty much START as Paragons (or Darksiders) if they want to. (Which is kinda cool really)

But what you get?

Paragon: A few extra points of Strain, always start the session with a bonus light destiny point.

Darkside: Use dark pips instead of light for activating force powers, a few less strain, a few more wounds, and you flip a light d-point to dark at the beginning of each session.

That's about it... See, nice, but hardly worth the gnashing of teeth you see over it. You don't get an extra FR, or the ability to reroll force checks or anything really game changing like that. Yeah a whole party of paragons is gonna have a lot of Dpoints to work with, and a whole party of darksiders won't... but still, not that huge a thing when all is said and done.

Of course what Morality represents is huge. Cast the dice aside and you get into one of the big pivots of the franchise. The EU humped the light/dark leg. Previous game systems dropped houses on players for doing a single misdeed... So as a result the Morality system, just be being what it is, gets saddled with all that previous baggage, and viewed through that lens. So of course there's people out there that will talk like your Morality is the most important thing on your sheet.

As to what you might want to consider:

I'd say start by just trying it as-is, see if it does anything for you or not.

The simple rules change you should try is just to move Morality, and maybe even XP, Duty, and Obligation, just for consistency, to the end of the Adventure or at some other established milestone. Over the course of a typical Adventure there's usually plenty of opportunities to earn enough conflict to make the system work naturally. If you run things really sand boxy and find yourself spending a lot of time shopping, and briefing, and wandering around looking for work, this would mitigate the "do-nothing Paragons" as well as XP for shopping and random Walmart bounty hunter shootouts... (as in inside a walmart, though I supposed they might be hunters from Walmart is that's how the obligation went)

And there's always the option to just dump it. It'll have about as much impact as dumping duty or obligation to be totally honest...in other words... you'll hardly notice it's even gone. I actually had to drop all three to narrative flavor status in the current campaign I'm running simply because the mechanics didn't factor in the insanity I've got going on.

....I'll grant that. Yet the road to hell Mustafar is paved with good intentions and using DSP to activate them.

Or good intentions that result in lose-lose scenarios. Such as Luke jaunting off to Bespin

Lucky Mara Arica was a little late getting on the barge...

I know this was an off-handed comment...but it makes me sad because I don't see any room for Mara in the new canon. She was my favorite EU character.

Not even convinced Leia got any conflict for choking Jabba. She didn't exactly have another option there. (Leia would have a morality rating, to be sure.)

Nah. I wouldn't even have given Leia a Force Rating at that point. She exhibits absolutely no Force abilities, doesn't enter any training. She is a Diplomat: Ambassador who has taken (at least) the Recruit specialization. I suppose we'll see in Episode VII what actually happened with her, but what I see in the EU is that she spends years devoting very little time to her Jedi training, mechanically resulting in perhaps a Force Rating of 2 after having bought into the Force Sensitive Emergent tree and picked up a few tricks along the way. But she never gets a Morality score, at least not in the old EU. She keeps her Duty. That's how I see it, anyway.

He does slip on the 2nd Death Star, but...well, anyone would slip staring Palpatine in the eye. Again, greatest Sith Lord of all time, bar none. Luke kept checking himself and trying to recenter, but Sidious is a Dark Side Nexus just by standing there. And he did ultimately spare his father. Which proceeded to save his life not 2 minutes later.

Indeed. Interesting dynamics, that.

And there's always the option to just dump it. It'll have about as much impact as dumping duty or obligation to be totally honest...in other words... you'll hardly notice it's even gone. I actually had to drop all three to narrative flavor status in the current campaign I'm running simply because the mechanics didn't factor in the insanity I've got going on.

I agree that people can tend to conflate previous editions of the SWRPG with this one, and in doing so adopt a skewed perception of the Morality mechanic.

But man, I love Morality, myself. I'd never want to dump it: it gives me soo much more to go on, as a player and as a GM, than Motivation alone, and it comes with a cool dice resolution thing. Plus it lets me roll more dice! And come on, who doesn't like rolling dice?

I can feel the insanity factor, though. It comes to me when I run a game with 6 players

I don't concern myself overly with it. As the GM I am the final arbiter for the game. If some player wants to try to game the system with me I will adjust for it. You can not just sit back and become a paragon nor does every use of dark pips amount to driving to the Dark side. The game gives you guidelines but it is the GM that must decide what makes sense or how it will be applied, whether that be choosing not to roll every game session or not at all in some cases.

Right, but over the course of a session the pip results clearly favour the dark side. I think it's fine, it just puts the whole Strain/DP flip/dark side issue into a different context. I'm more certain now that I would never penalize the player with Conflict for spending dark pips provided they spent the Strain and flipped the DP.

I don't agree with that at all..

If a player uses the dark pip he took the easy way out! Conflict... that's the whole point of it. By not taking that into account it makes the whole morality/conflict mechanic moot.

,,,Mara probably won't make it into Disney, no. At least, I haven't heard tell of them casting any Redheads Mark Hamil's age in the movie. They could be keeping it under wraps, of course. Of course, I think they want Luke to be a Yodalike hermit instead of a man with a family, so yeah. Which is WEIRD for Disney, considering how much they love fairytale romance...

Hell, I'm not even sure they've married Han and Leia. I think the comics had Han with an existing wife.

On Leia having a morality rating:

You could start her as a Diplomat...or you could acknowledge that she's Anakin's daughter whether she wants to be or not and decide her first skillset is Mystic/Advisor. I might also give her influence and the control/skills upgrade to further acknowledge she's Anakin's daughter. Besides, she resisted a sith interrogation droid on the Death Star 1. You're probably not giving Vader the finger without some help from the Force. Maybe she develops basic sense too, due to being able to hear Luke's telepathic (come save me!) at Bespin.

Similarly, because Luke is Anakin's son, I might start him off with Warrior/Starfighter Ace. Because he spends his most heroic moments in a cockpit in ep 4. Even in ep 4, he needs enough enhance upgrades to cover his piloting skills. Hence 'use the Force Luke!' Though I'm surprised there's no enhance upgrade to gunnery. Hmm.

On Leia having a morality rating:

You could start her as a Diplomat...or you could acknowledge that she's Anakin's daughter whether she wants to be or not and decide her first skillset is Mystic/Advisor. I might also give her influence and the control/skills upgrade to further acknowledge she's Anakin's daughter. Besides, she resisted a sith interrogation droid on the Death Star 1. You're probably not giving Vader the finger without some help from the Force. Maybe she develops basic sense too, due to being able to hear Luke's telepathic (come save me!) at Bespin.

Leia has no real deep connection to the force to warrant a Morality rating throughout Episode IV-VI. So, even if she did start in a FaD career just to have a Force Rating, she doesn't need to actually have Morality and would've just started with Duty, which fits a lot better for an agent of the Rebellion anyways.

But I definitely wouldn't say she had any sort of powers or really used any; I'm pretty sure Vader would've noticed if the woman he was interrogating was pulling from the Force in any meaningful way.

But this is all beside the point of the topic.

Hmmm. True.

Not all those with Force Ratings need to have Morality.

And not

Hmmm. True.

Not all those with Force Ratings need to have Morality.

And not all those with a strong connection to the Force need have a Force rating. FR is what you use to activate Force powers, so if your character doesn't use the Force, there is no reason to force a character into a specific career or spec just because she's the daughter of the nastiest Force user the Galaxy has seen in millennia.

Leila is a diplomat, plain and simple. She never used any Force-related abilities in the movies, so there is no need to treat her as a Force user. That background is more the player saying, "hey, I might one day want to use the Force, so my background makes it plausible if I decide to go that route."

-EF

And not

Hmmm. True.

Not all those with Force Ratings need to have Morality.

And not all those with a strong connection to the Force need have a Force rating. FR is what you use to activate Force powers, so if your character doesn't use the Force, there is no reason to force a character into a specific career or spec just because she's the daughter of the nastiest Force user the Galaxy has seen in millennia.

Leila is a diplomat, plain and simple. She never used any Force-related abilities in the movies, so there is no need to treat her as a Force user. That background is more the player saying, "hey, I might one day want to use the Force, so my background makes it plausible if I decide to go that route."

-EF

This was pretty much the approach that WEG took with their Star Wars game, as a PC could very easily be "Force-sensitive" by marking a box on their character sheet, but unless they invested in Force Powers that decision really didn't have a major short-term impacts beyond starting with an extra Force Point. The various d20 systems required you to spend a fairly valuable character level feat to become Force-sensitive, but doing so came with a number of additional perks (namely access to a small set of Force abilities that were useful but generally not super-powerful).

I'd say Leia is a prime example of a "latent" Force-sensitive not unlike Ivanova being a latent telepath in Babylon 5; the ability is there, but neither woman can really do anything with it. With the canon reboot, we'll have to wait for Force Awakens to see if Leia ever did anything with her latent Force ability, or if she took a route similar to the early New Republic EU and didn't really bother due to her severe commitments to the Alliance/New Republic.

Well, the career I chose for her still gives her the 'face' talents Leia would want, it just places more emphasis on who her daddy is. I figured, when she finished that talent tree, she'd then buy the actual diplomat specialization next to further boost her face abilities (Cause she doesn't care about the Force. She may be born with it, but...)