So characters make a morality roll even when they've gained no conflict? That means they are always gaining morality.

Emotional strengths and weaknesses are mechanically redundant. Conduct is gained regardless of the traits you choose and only through actively hurting others in some fashion. Your strengths and weaknesses do nothing.

The system claims it's foolproof but to gain list morality all you need to do is commit a terrible act and gain more than9 conflict so that you can't roll higher. Thus you lose morality inevitably.

The system is headword to awarding and spring good behavior even though it allotted characters to fall to the dark side. Such a character generates extra dark side destiny points, but they still only benefit the gm. Those points will still work against the characters even if they are all dark side. In fact the more of then that are will mean the gm gains more dark side points.

Disappointing; this is by far the worst of the 'behavior' systems so far.

this is incorrect,

you do not always gain morality during a game, to gain morality in a game you must at some point do something that triggers your strength or weakness, for example if I am compassionate, I must do something reasonably compassionate to trigger my morality, at which point I gain the dice, if I do nothing compassionate then I don't

Triggered morality is an optional rule where the GM can roll a d100 and the character who's morality score is closest has his morality triggered in some fashion. It's not the default mechanism for morality.

The rules say that at the end of the session, wherein characters gain some or no Conflict points, players each roll 1d10 and gain/lose Morality equal to the difference. If you have gained no Conflict you will always gain morality since 1d10 - 0 = at least 1 point.

That is my understanding of the rule. Perhaps I missed something.

Characters choice of emotional strengths/weaknesses is just colour; it serves no mechanical purpose.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

this is incorrect,

you do not always gain morality during a game, to gain morality in a game you must at some point do something that triggers your strength or weakness, for example if I am compassionate, I must do something reasonably compassionate to trigger my morality, at which point I gain the dice, if I do nothing compassionate then I don't

Actually, it is correct. You make a roll at the end of the session whether or not you triggered your strength or weakness.

So characters make a morality roll even when they've gained no conflict? That means they are always gaining morality.

Emotional strengths and weaknesses are mechanically redundant. Conduct is gained regardless of the traits you choose and only through actively hurting others in some fashion. Your strengths and weaknesses do nothing.

The system claims it's foolproof but to gain list morality all you need to do is commit a terrible act and gain more than9 conflict so that you can't roll higher. Thus you lose morality inevitably.

The system is headword to awarding and spring good behavior even though it allotted characters to fall to the dark side. Such a character generates extra dark side destiny points, but they still only benefit the gm. Those points will still work against the characters even if they are all dark side. In fact the more of then that are will mean the gm gains more dark side points.

Disappointing; this is by far the worst of the 'behavior' systems so far.

1. They are not always gaining Morality. The amount gained or lost depends entirely on the amount of Conflict each player has accrued during the session.

2. Emotional Strength and Weakness is not redundant. If either one is triggered during play (after that player's Morality came up during the pre-session dice roll) he gains or loses TWICE the normal amount of Morality.

The point is simply that players who want to become Light side Paragons need to keep their proverbial noses as clean as possible. It might seem as if this is merely a matter of "not doing anything bad", but if that is so easy then the GM simply isn't doing his job very well. If you're GM'ing a F&D campaign then it is nothing less than your job to place your players in morally ambiguous situations. Give them an easy option that will generate Conflict and a difficult option that won't.

Example: The players need to learn the location of a covert Imperial base. The easy option would be to grab an Imperial official with that knowledge and torture it out of him. The hard option is to break into an Imperial data storage facility, slice their computers and learn the location that way.

As for characters who want to generate a lot of conflict and become Dark side Force users, that's entirely their perogative (provided it fits with the campaign and the rest of the group). In addition to the "flip a Light side Destiny point to a Dark one"-thing they also have a reduced strain threshold and an increased wound threshold. Any "rewards" beyond that are entirely character-driven; a player who wants to play a Dark side Force user gets to do so, why should there be any further rewards for that?

1. They are not always gaining Morality. The amount gained or lost depends entirely on the amount of Conflict each player has accrued during the session.

2. Emotional Strength and Weakness is not redundant. If either one is triggered during play (after that player's Morality came up during the pre-session dice roll) he gains or loses TWICE the normal amount of Morality.

But they will gain morality if they earned no Conflict, that's what I'm trying to point out. The only way to lose Morality is to roll poorly if you gain more than 1 point of Conflict that session. If you gain fewer Conflict you can only gain Morality. It is either or, there is no possibility of gaining 0.

That is true, but the triggering rule is not the default and is presented as optional. You don't have to play it that way, nor is there any guarantee that, if you did, it would trigger for any character.

The rulebook claims teh system is foolproof but it's really not, though you'd have to behave like a complete tool to do so (which is the point I suppose )

But they will gain morality if they earned no Conflict, that's what I'm trying to point out. The only way to lose Morality is to roll poorly if you gain more than 1 point of Conflict that session. If you gain fewer Conflict you can only gain Morality. It is either or, there is no possibility of gaining 0.

That is true, but the triggering rule is not the default and is presented as optional. You don't have to play it that way, nor is there any guarantee that, if you did, it would trigger for any character.

The rulebook claims teh system is foolproof but it's really not, though you'd have to behave like a complete tool to do so (which is the point I suppose )

If you roll equal to the Conflict you earned, you there is no Morality change, so there is in fact a possibility of gaining 0. And the fact that you can roll under Conflict earned, does mean you can lose Morality, adding to the fact that you are not "always gaining Morality".

Even if you don't use trigger Morality, it should still be used to help define a character's actions. If something shows up that hits their weakness, they should probably go for it, otherwise, they're not really roleplaying.

And I'm pretty positive the book does not ever claim it is "foolproof", if it does, you're free to point out the page number.

And then at the end of the day the game relies on the fact that the GM is the final arbiter. If you do nothing or avoid situations or some other course to avoid conflict but at the same time do nothing on the light side of things, it is well within their power to not call for a roll.

this is incorrect,

you do not always gain morality during a game, to gain morality in a game you must at some point do something that triggers your strength or weakness, for example if I am compassionate, I must do something reasonably compassionate to trigger my morality, at which point I gain the dice, if I do nothing compassionate then I don't

Actually, it is correct. You make a roll at the end of the session whether or not you triggered your strength or weakness.

F&D Core page 52 Cases When Morality Should Not Increase talks about not changing Morality if the player isn't present for the session, the character is incapacitated for the session or if the character has no chance to do anything.

There is no sleeping your way to Paragon status, by the rules.

this is incorrect,

you do not always gain morality during a game, to gain morality in a game you must at some point do something that triggers your strength or weakness, for example if I am compassionate, I must do something reasonably compassionate to trigger my morality, at which point I gain the dice, if I do nothing compassionate then I don't

Actually, it is correct. You make a roll at the end of the session whether or not you triggered your strength or weakness.

F&D Core page 52 Cases When Morality Should Not Increase talks about not changing Morality if the player isn't present for the session, the character is incapacitated for the session or if the character has no chance to do anything.

There is no sleeping your way to Paragon status, by the rules.

that doesnt contradict what ive said.

And then at the end of the day the game relies on the fact that the GM is the final arbiter. If you do nothing or avoid situations or some other course to avoid conflict but at the same time do nothing on the light side of things, it is well within their power to not call for a roll.

Then why have the rules at all?

If the GM has to step in then the rules have failed.

So don't use them. Buh bye.

So don't use them. Buh bye.

are you being deliberately obtuse? game mechanics should work. Morality is key to the experience of the lives of force users, but instead of accepting the system is not designed properly once again the FFGfanboys have a little sulk and cry like this. Good grief, how immature!

game mechanics should work.

Which they do. Just not the way you want them to. Sometimes game mechanics will not fit your own conception of how things work, but that does not mean they do not work in general.

And then at the end of the day the game relies on the fact that the GM is the final arbiter. If you do nothing or avoid situations or some other course to avoid conflict but at the same time do nothing on the light side of things, it is well within their power to not call for a roll.

Then why have the rules at all?

If the GM has to step in then the rules have failed.

Why have a GM at all if the rules are perfect and everyone follows them to the letter?

game mechanics should work.

Which they do. Just not the way you want them to. Sometimes game mechanics will not fit your own conception of how things work, but that does not mean they do not work in general.

So we have a morality system that, if no conflict is earned (and there's no reason it should be), the hero will gain more points. Not if, will. Every session this happens, his score will increase. It is possible then, that after only a few sessions, the character, assuming a starting score of 50 which is the default, is already a paragon of the light side. Does that seem the right way to do this to you?

And then at the end of the day the game relies on the fact that the GM is the final arbiter. If you do nothing or avoid situations or some other course to avoid conflict but at the same time do nothing on the light side of things, it is well within their power to not call for a roll.

Then why have the rules at all?

If the GM has to step in then the rules have failed.

You wouldn't have a game without rules.

Why have a GM at all if the rules are perfect and everyone follows them to the letter?

Because the GM presents the scenario, rolls for opposition, and plays the part of every other character, As you know.

1) "Session" in FFG terms means a stretch of gaming where the players are expected to make significant story progress. By definition the GM should be putting th eplayers in a position to earn conflict. If he's not doing that it's not the fault of the mechanic.

2) You could Say the exact same thing about Obligation or Duty not being actionable during every single session of play.

3) Yes, it's slanted toward the light a little, that's so a player can just play and, being generally good, go up. And in case you didn't notice the benefits

of both ends are minor. This was to get away from previous systems playing of the system to get max rewards.

Morality is key to the experience of the lives of force users, but instead of accepting the system is not designed properly once again the FFGfanboys have a little sulk and cry like this.

The argument could also be made that you're placing the Force users on a pedestal FFG made a well needed point of knocking them off of. Morality is (just like obligation and duty) a personal character story driver, and the function, actions, and mechanics reflect that. Anakin/Vader going from Paragon to Darkside was an underlying motivator, but it was almost always the B-plot of the films. Obi, Luke, Ect, didn't really make any serious moves up and down the chart, so it's hardly "Key experience." Compared to something like Obligation it's pretty much solid. Han's Ob activates and Boba show up to MandoMonkeywrench the 3rd Act of Empire. That same session Luke's Morality pops and... I AM YOU FATHER!. Anakins pops, and "Oh yeah. Shmi Schmo Schmuppy's been kidnapped by sand people, good luck with that." In all those cases the secondary system did more for the story then anything else.

The fact that you're freaking out over Morality, without mentioning Obligation or Duty strongly suggests that you may not see the forest for the trees here.

You say FFG Fanboys aren't seeing the system as broken, I say Jedi Fanboy isn't seeing the mechanic for what it really is.

Rules are not absolutes. They can be but are not necessarily so. They are guidelines. As has already been stated, you can not sleep your way to paragon-hood. At least not with an intelligent GM. Maybe it can happen with a naive or intimidated one and an opportunistic player. Otherwise a GM can choose to allow or disallow rolls depending on the session or what they consider a session. For most people this is not an issue as this is only an outlying problem for certain people. For a majority of people playing there is an understanding that there must be conflict and actions in regards to your morality in order for there to be any kind of roll.

So don't use them. Buh bye.

are you being deliberately obtuse? game mechanics should work. Morality is key to the experience of the lives of force users, but instead of accepting the system is not designed properly once again the FFGfanboys have a little sulk and cry like this. Good grief, how immature!

Strikes me as more dismissive of you than anything else.

As to FFGfanboys I don't see any sulking or crying. Many of us who have had the benefit of the F&D beta have discussed Morality ad nauseum already. You are not the first to have such thoughts nor do I expect you to be the last. The system is not meant to be heavy handed as others have been in the past. No taking your character away if you go dark and such. It is designed to be a role-playing narrative aid. Some light mechanics on either end support it, but at the end of the day it is yet another tool for a GM to use to drive his players' characters.

So

Rules are not absolutes. They can be but are not necessarily so. They are guidelines. As has already been stated, you can not sleep your way to paragon-hood. At least not with an intelligent GM. Maybe it can happen with a naive or intimidated one and an opportunistic player. Otherwise a GM can choose to allow or disallow rolls depending on the session or what they consider a session. For most people this is not an issue as this is only an outlying problem for certain people. For a majority of people playing there is an understanding that there must be conflict and actions in regards to your morality in order for there to be any kind of roll.

So you admit the rule as written doesn't work. You're asserting that most people will only call for a morality roll if conflict is earned.

So

Rules are not absolutes. They can be but are not necessarily so. They are guidelines. As has already been stated, you can not sleep your way to paragon-hood. At least not with an intelligent GM. Maybe it can happen with a naive or intimidated one and an opportunistic player. Otherwise a GM can choose to allow or disallow rolls depending on the session or what they consider a session. For most people this is not an issue as this is only an outlying problem for certain people. For a majority of people playing there is an understanding that there must be conflict and actions in regards to your morality in order for there to be any kind of roll.

So you admit the rule as written doesn't work. You're asserting that most people will only call for a morality roll if conflict is earned.

Only if the GM doesn't do his job too. But that is true of any game system.

The argument could also be made that you're placing the Force users on a pedestal FFG made a well needed point of knocking them off of.

How?

What pedestal are you talking about?

So

Rules are not absolutes. They can be but are not necessarily so. They are guidelines. As has already been stated, you can not sleep your way to paragon-hood. At least not with an intelligent GM. Maybe it can happen with a naive or intimidated one and an opportunistic player. Otherwise a GM can choose to allow or disallow rolls depending on the session or what they consider a session. For most people this is not an issue as this is only an outlying problem for certain people. For a majority of people playing there is an understanding that there must be conflict and actions in regards to your morality in order for there to be any kind of roll.

So you admit the rule as written doesn't work. You're asserting that most people will only call for a morality roll if conflict is earned.

Only if the GM doesn't do his job too. But that is true of any game system.

I don't understand; you said that most people won't call for a roll unless conflict is earned, that's not what the rule says. If you are running the game that way then you must be doing so on the basis the rule isn't up to the job. What does this have to do with the GM doing his job. If the GM follows what the rule says then how is he not doing his job? Are you now saying that unless a GM decides to arbitrarily toss the rules out when it suits him to do so he's not doing his job?

No I said there must be conflict, not conflict given. The character must actually engage in the game, he can not sit back and sleep his way to paragon-hood. A character can be faced with all kinds of situations. Sometimes they can be very apparent choices between light and dark, "good" and "evil". Sometimes they can be shades of each. Sometimes he can get through a session and gain no conflict (should be rare in my book) and sometimes only a few points and sometimes so much that his morality will drop for sure. It is the job of the GM to make sure the player and his character faces these choices. If a GM doesn't then he is not doing his job. And if a player actively tries to avoid or just doesn't engage then he is not doing his job.

Again, this is not an issue for most people who play the game as they understand that this a role-playing tool and not a hard and fast game mechanic.

So we have a morality system that, if no conflict is earned (and there's no reason it should be), the hero will gain more points. Not if, will. Every session this happens, his score will increase. It is possible then, that after only a few sessions, the character, assuming a starting score of 50 which is the default, is already a paragon of the light side. Does that seem the right way to do this to you

Since we see only a handful of Jedi fall within the movies (most of them due to outside influence), but are repeatedly told that there a thousands out there, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of Jedi are gravitating to the Light Side - which is not surprising, since being a Light Side Force User is what being a Jedi is all about. So, yes, Jedi being Light Side seems to be the right way to me. It is obviously the default for Force Users in this system; again, not surprising.

Also, the system obviously assumes that the GM - and the player, too, given the amount of player agency assumed in the rules -, will present opportunities for Conflict. Just like it assumes that the GM will provide opportunities for different characters to shine. For example, there are multiple talents removing setback dice from skill rolls, which are totally broken if the GM never puts those setback dice on the table. Conflict is part of being a Force User in this game and thus should be introduced by GMs and players. Just like GMs should use Obligation and Duty, just like the GM should introduce juicy encounters for both combat and social monsters, should have something for the pilot to, for the mechanic, for the knowledge-specialist and so on and on.

To be honest, a story that does not involve conflict actually sounds boring; who wants to play that?