I would argue that Obligation nor Duty encompasses what it means to be a Force user. They can carry both Obligation and Duty, but neither of those is personal. Both of those deal with how they relate to other people. Morality is inherently personal. The Universal Force is concerned about how the individual deals with its powers, not on how that individual relates to others. The Force is not very relativistic in how it views Morality, though in our times the term morals is certainly skewed by relativism. Mixing in Good with Evil while dealing with Morality makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I can appreciate that. I can assist my players struggling with that at my table, but it can be something very personal and relies heavily on motivation. The same action by different people in differing circumstances can be good or evil. This makes people afraid to make a judgement and therefore Morality becomes a way of judging a character and our modern approach tends to not like to do that. Especially when compared to a Morality of a Truth (capital T), instead of the morality of an individual which can be subjected to relativism.

I don't think my way is the only way. I try to avoid most of these Morality threads as there is a vast difference in experience and perspective among the readers. I will allow others to fully vent their opinion without taking offense, but do not feel that this is reciprocated by most. I would dare say that without stating it, religion has influenced most of these discussions and we have all avoided it because we know where that will take us. It is still an influence on how we view this kind of touchy subject. I don't have an answer that would suit everyone, but I firmly believe in the power of this mechanic and where it can take characters in their development.

And you haven't, here, yet.

But the "I don't see how it's a problem" is how that crap starts basically every time, the post I quoted above is heading in that direction. If you think it's not possible for the absence of Morality/Conflict to negatively impact an EotE game, fine. However, your opinion or view point is irrelevant to the fact that every game that would be included in any qualification falls into three basic categories:

• Games that are enhanced by the inclusion of the mechanic
• Games that are unaffected by the inclusion of the mechanic
• Games that are worsened by the inclusion of the mechanic

Your statement basically says you don't believe the first kind exists (i.e. the omission of the mechanic cannot have a negative effect).

Well, they do exist. I don't know how to put it more plainly than that. In fact, I see all of my games falling into the first two categories, because those are the games I want to run. Additionally, my posts above should make it clear I'm not in a "no questions asked" state of mind. I simply think that that the Conflict/Morality system is a vastly better way of handling dark side use than we get in EotE's core:

"The long-term consequences of constantly tapping into the dark side of the Force are left up to the role-playing of the player and the GM. However, both should keep in mind that the dark side is born of fear, anger, and hatred, and these emotions should be present in the Player Character." (EotE core, p 278)

So, as far as I can tell, the choice is:

• Two purely subjective sentences from a game not designed to handle force-users.
• Pages of [semi]objective rules in a game designed for force-users.

My choice is clear. Again, do whatever you want.

For me though, it still comes down to what kind of game you want to run. If that light/dark balance isn't really important then I don't see a strong need for it, so I advocate a 'what suits your game' approach. But it was entirely possible I overlooked some major imbalance or issue that might arise if you omit the Morality aspect from force users and was merely looking for insight should that be the case.

No, I'm basically saying "what works for your game" too, and I'm sorry if I made anyone feel like they had to defend their stance to avoid that system in all EotE games.

As far as insight to why I feel that way? I don't think I can make more clear than the Sorites Paradox example I gave above. It directly avoids the need for a player and GM to have to keep on the same page in regards to a purely subjective issue as to when a character falls to the dark side.

I in no way intend to belittle people their choices.

And you haven't, here, yet.

But the "I don't see how it's a problem" is how that crap starts basically every time, the post I quoted above is heading in that direction. If you think it's not possible for the absence of Morality/Conflict to negatively impact an EotE game, fine. However, your opinion or view point is irrelevant to the fact that every game that would be included in any qualification falls into three basic categories:

• Games that are enhanced by the inclusion of the mechanic
• Games that are unaffected by the inclusion of the mechanic
• Games that are worsened by the inclusion of the mechanic

Your statement basically says you don't believe the first kind exists (i.e. the omission of the mechanic cannot have a negative effect).

I am not quite sure how you get this.. but it isn't what I am saying at all. Can there be games enhanced by the inclusion of the mechanic? Absolutely. My statement asks, are there games that can be worsened by it's omission. Just because some games can be made better by including it does not mean that the game is inherently made worse by it's omission.

I believe my question was pretty clear and concise in asking what the inherent negative of omitting the Morality mechanic would be. It was even fairly specific. If your game is focused on the EotE themes, living on the fringe and managing to get by while remaining under the Imperial's radar, would there really be any significant harm in simply ignoring the Morality mechanics even if using a F&D career and specialization based character in this situation. That in no way leads immediately to the inverse of claiming the game couldn't be enhanced by including it.

It's like an ice cream cone: Is my ice cream cone bad because it has no chocolate coating? Answering no to that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better if it did have it, it's just not bad for not having it.

Player "I force choke the Life out of the smuggler. I tap some dark side points to fuel it"

GM "You have fallen to the Dark Side Young Jedi."

Player "Wait? What!.... How am I falling to the Dark side!. He is just a Smuggler!"

GM "You actions over the last Year have culminated to this end. THis was the finale Straw that threw you over the Edge into Milk and Cookies Dark Side"

Player "No way.. i don't even Get a warning?"

GM "I have Warned you many times over the past several months that you were getting close."

Player "Ya but you have been saying hat for months.. I figured I would get a 'your are about to go over to the Darkside Now' Warning"

Gm "You made your choice and have pushed things to far"

Player "Says you?"

GM "Yes Because I am the GM."

Vs

Gm "You accumulated this many points toward the Darkside. Drawing upon it again this time Put you over. You are now Fallen to the Darkside."

Player "Oh Crap. Your right." Looks at other players, "You Guys will need to try and redeem me.. I am your friend an companion all these years after all... That has to count for something right?"

Player "I force choke the Life out of the smuggler. I tap some dark side points to fuel it"

GM "You have fallen to the Dark Side Young Jedi."

Player "Wait? What!.... How am I falling to the Dark side!. He is just a Smuggler!"

GM "You actions over the last Year have culminated to this end. THis was the finale Straw that threw you over the Edge into Milk and Cookies Dark Side"

Player "No way.. i don't even Get a warning?"

GM "I have Warned you many times over the past several months that you were getting close."

Player "Ya but you have been saying hat for months.. I figured I would get a 'your are about to go over to the Darkside Now' Warning"

Gm "You made your choice and have pushed things to far"

Player "Says you?"

GM "Yes Because I am the GM."

Vs

Gm "You accumulated this many points toward the Darkside. Drawing upon it again this time Put you over. You are now Fallen to the Darkside."

Player "Oh Crap. Your right." Looks at other players, "You Guys will need to try and redeem me.. I am your friend an companion all these years after all... That has to count for something right?"

This is exactly the situation the Morality system is designed to counter. It is a described, detailed, objective and regimented method of detailing the progression to the Dark/Light Side.

It obviates the need for a discussion between the GM and the player and preemptively defuses the situation. "Sorry, you hit the magic number."

That said, in one of the games I play, I got ambushed by the GM with a 20 point conflict hit that was part of the "story." A fact that I was uninformed about and had no way to minimize/mitigate. Since it was early in the campaign (like 3rd session) and since I was playing a Grey Jedi (trying to stay +/- 10 from 50 for maximum benefits), it immediately dropped me into DS territory.

In short, players should know the impact their decisions are having and they should be informed of when they're going to receive conflict (and approximately how much) before they take any actions. This is handled quite well by the rules regarding use of DS pips, but needs to be called out by GMs during RP encounters.

I think the discussion on my Morality question has pretty successfully run it's course (not wanting to derail this thread too long on that added question). And the reasons for using it are quite fair, and especially for using it as a default.

I am so accustomed to groups that tend towards good guy behaviors and actions and who are very laid back and easy going so the arguments between GM and Player didn't seem a real strong driver for me. I had certainly already noted it is an excellent way to codify the light/dark balance of characters but to me that didn't seem absolutely necessary just because most of my experiences have been groups where they would have naturally drifted towards light anyhow or if they were going dark that is what they wanted from the start and were clear about it. I am not accustomed to behaviors like force choking people and not expecting to go dark for it, or ignoring GM warnings and arguing about it later. I realize that was likely an intentionally extreme example but still it can and does happen, I've not experienced it but I know it does occur.

I think the fair thing to say is that when force users are involved it is definitely good to tend towards using the Morality system if for no reason other than to guide that light/dark balance and curb those players that are inclined towards those kinds of arguments and trying to push the boundary of how much force choking they can get away with while still being 'good'. At the same time, if you know your group well and that this isn't going to be a concern and you don't feel the need to accurately pace their drifting to either light or dark the game itself is not seriously impeded by ignoring this mechanic.

To those that did answer, thanks for the input. You all provided what I was looking for which was just the reasons you felt it was important to include it. It was informative and helpful and hopefully it can help others trying to make the decision on what cross game mechanics to include in their own games.

Player "I force choke the Life out of the smuggler. I tap some dark side points to fuel it"

GM "You have fallen to the Dark Side Young Jedi."

Player "Wait? What!.... How am I falling to the Dark side!. He is just a Smuggler!"

GM "You actions over the last Year have culminated to this end. THis was the finale Straw that threw you over the Edge into Milk and Cookies Dark Side"

Player "No way.. i don't even Get a warning?"

GM "I have Warned you many times over the past several months that you were getting close."

Player "Ya but you have been saying hat for months.. I figured I would get a 'your are about to go over to the Darkside Now' Warning"

Gm "You made your choice and have pushed things to far"

Player "Says you?"

GM "Yes Because I am the GM."

Vs

Gm "You accumulated this many points toward the Darkside. Drawing upon it again this time Put you over. You are now Fallen to the Darkside."

Player "Oh Crap. Your right." Looks at other players, "You Guys will need to try and redeem me.. I am your friend an companion all these years after all... That has to count for something right?"

This, ^, +1, like, etc.

That said, in one of the games I play, I got ambushed by the GM with a 20 point conflict hit that was part of the "story." A fact that I was uninformed about and had no way to minimize/mitigate. Since it was early in the campaign (like 3rd session) and since I was playing a Grey Jedi (trying to stay +/- 10 from 50 for maximum benefits), it immediately dropped me into DS territory.

That's some $#!t.

Feeling a little defensive now...

Just to clarify, the group I am running the campaign for, we are all old friends, we have been gaming together for decades now, and are familiar with our relative styles of play/GMing. I did warn the player of the Marauder/Force Emergent (he preferred that to Force Exile) that even though FFG had yet to go into detail regarding ethical decisions of force users and long term effects of using Dark Side Points to activate Force Powers, they no doubt would and I would likely be implementing additional mechanics once I knew what FFG had in mind. The player was happy enough with this at the time, and now just as happy with the Morality/Conflict mechanics F&D introduced, in fact once I mentioned the 'magic numbers' (below 30, above 70) he said "At least I have a target now". Whether he was talking Dark Sider or Paragon, we will have to see, but either way it is his choice and the group respect this. It's an EoTE campaign, not a F&D one, so going Dark Side wouldn't be too bad for the campaign (or group), just makes it interesting. I wouldn't say I have just dropped a house rule on him unexpectedly.

As for F&D Conflict in regards to looting as opposed to theft, I will have to think on this further and discuss with group, but I am staggered with all the response I have had in this (should have known this would be hotbed of discussion, ethics always are ) and has certainly raised points I hadn't thought of.

Player "I force choke the Life out of the smuggler. I tap some dark side points to fuel it"

GM "You have fallen to the Dark Side Young Jedi."

Player "Wait? What!.... How am I falling to the Dark side!. He is just a Smuggler!"

GM "You actions over the last Year have culminated to this end. THis was the finale Straw that threw you over the Edge into Milk and Cookies Dark Side"

Player "No way.. i don't even Get a warning?"

GM "I have Warned you many times over the past several months that you were getting close."

Player "Ya but you have been saying hat for months.. I figured I would get a 'your are about to go over to the Darkside Now' Warning"

Gm "You made your choice and have pushed things to far"

Player "Says you?"

GM "Yes Because I am the GM."

Vs

Gm "You accumulated this many points toward the Darkside. Drawing upon it again this time Put you over. You are now Fallen to the Darkside."

Player "Oh Crap. Your right." Looks at other players, "You Guys will need to try and redeem me.. I am your friend an companion all these years after all... That has to count for something right?"

This is exactly the situation the Morality system is designed to counter. It is a described, detailed, objective and regimented method of detailing the progression to the Dark/Light Side.

It obviates the need for a discussion between the GM and the player and preemptively defuses the situation. "Sorry, you hit the magic number."

That said, in one of the games I play, I got ambushed by the GM with a 20 point conflict hit that was part of the "story." A fact that I was uninformed about and had no way to minimize/mitigate. Since it was early in the campaign (like 3rd session) and since I was playing a Grey Jedi (trying to stay +/- 10 from 50 for maximum benefits), it immediately dropped me into DS territory.

In short, players should know the impact their decisions are having and they should be informed of when they're going to receive conflict (and approximately how much) before they take any actions. This is handled quite well by the rules regarding use of DS pips, but needs to be called out by GMs during RP encounters.

20 POINTS OF CONFLICT!!?? Holy Crap! Hate to think what the story aspect was that would cause you get hit with that much Conflict, I would ask but I like to be able to sleep at night

That was the -best- part. Something happened (it was never explained what) and I woke up in the middle of the night from a Force Dream with a desire to kill everyone and everything around me. Still don't know why. Had to roll a Discipline check (which I made).

Ta-Da. You're angry. You have no idea why. Something feels very wrong with the Force.

End of session: Have 20 conflict. *entire table has apoplexy and says What!?*

Dude, I would have walked out of that session and not come back. Life is too short for bad GMs and bad players.

Yeah... I'm puzzled and speechless by that. I can't ever imagine handing out a mechanical shift like that to a player without more narrative and player participation. If you, as the player, decided you wanted to have a dream and for me the GM to work it into a plot hook to make a change in story... then I could see a collaboration that could leave the other players in the dark and surprised until the story played out.

I could see flipping a destiny point and upgrading the difficulty, but I can't find a good reason to just hand out conflict like that without player involvement. Sorry that happened to you...

That said, in one of the games I play, I got ambushed by the GM with a 20 point conflict hit that was part of the "story." A fact that I was uninformed about and had no way to minimize/mitigate. Since it was early in the campaign (like 3rd session) and since I was playing a Grey Jedi (trying to stay +/- 10 from 50 for maximum benefits), it immediately dropped me into DS territory.

In short, players should know the impact their decisions are having and they should be informed of when they're going to receive conflict (and approximately how much) before they take any actions. This is handled quite well by the rules regarding use of DS pips, but needs to be called out by GMs during RP encounters.

First a 20pt Conflict dropped on a PC for story better have some really major plot value and some equally impressive opportunities for redemption. I can see it as a hook in certain situations but it's most definitely something to be discussed with the Players beforehand.

However I don't think it's necessary to tell Players the Conflict costs for their action ahead of time. Players may not know for sure how bad a thing is but they know its bad and as such getting Conflict should not be a surprise.

Feeling a little defensive now...

Just to clarify, the group I am running the campaign for, we are all old friends, we have been gaming together for decades now, and are familiar with our relative styles of play/GMing. I did warn the player of the Marauder/Force Emergent (he preferred that to Force Exile) that even though FFG had yet to go into detail regarding ethical decisions of force users and long term effects of using Dark Side Points to activate Force Powers, they no doubt would and I would likely be implementing additional mechanics once I knew what FFG had in mind. The player was happy enough with this at the time, and now just as happy with the Morality/Conflict mechanics F&D introduced, in fact once I mentioned the 'magic numbers' (below 30, above 70) he said "At least I have a target now". Whether he was talking Dark Sider or Paragon, we will have to see, but either way it is his choice and the group respect this. It's an EoTE campaign, not a F&D one, so going Dark Side wouldn't be too bad for the campaign (or group), just makes it interesting. I wouldn't say I have just dropped a house rule on him unexpectedly.

As for F&D Conflict in regards to looting as opposed to theft, I will have to think on this further and discuss with group, but I am staggered with all the response I have had in this (should have known this would be hotbed of discussion, ethics always are ) and has certainly raised points I hadn't thought of.

I don't think you have any reason to feel defensive. Inclusion of the morality system within other systems, especially if you have Force Sensitives involved is definitely not wrong or bad. It does have it's benefits. I did lead a bit of an aside just curious on what the specific detriments and failings of excluding it might be but I wouldn't want to give the impression that I feel you would be wrong for including it.

As many have said, and you've obviously found with your player, it provides an excellent codified system for tracking lightside/darkside progression with defined 'target numbers'.

As for the looting, I think it would be something I'd attempt to discourage as a general practice. I mean, in the movies and cartoon series you don't see even the mercenaries and bounty hunters stopping to pat down their foes and grab their credits or loose gear in order to sell it. For one, I don't think just any old gun shop is going to let joe bounty hunter walk in off the street and buy a used gun off of them. Perhaps used items have extremely low resale value making the time and effort not really worth it, especially when coupled with having to find a buyer willing to actually buy it. I mean, maybe old Watto would buy some used items in order to scrap them for parts but his price is going to be extremely low since he has to put labor into salvaging the parts he wants and then make a profit on selling those parts. Similarly, most reputable shops probably don't buy used weapons because they just don't resell.. people want the shiny, new reliable stuff.

When it comes to conflict for looting, if they are looting for the purpose of selling the items for credits (Selfish reasons) I would likely use the destruction of property conflict awards as a guideline for how much to award them. Their motives are selfish and either way they are effectively removing access to the item from the looted person.

Honestly looting the fallen for weapons and such, especially for Rebel/EotE characters seems only natural.

The real question for you should be ok now they have this stash of guns.. who's gonna buy them? Ever just brought a haul of **** to your local walmart for them to buy? oh.. they didn't? yeah well neither are most the stores in Star Wars. A local guy might buy some weapons to resell but yeah he's not gonna give a lot and he's def not gonna want E-11 blasters.

But a Rebel cell, or a local band of smugglers/Mercs/resistance yeah they probably would.

Running the Long arm of the Hutt proved to be a pretty big boon for my group because they needed weapons and my players had looted a lot of blaster pistols up to that point. They didn't get a lot but it helped.

That was the -best- part. Something happened (it was never explained what) and I woke up in the middle of the night from a Force Dream with a desire to kill everyone and everything around me. Still don't know why. Had to roll a Discipline check (which I made).

Ta-Da. You're angry. You have no idea why. Something feels very wrong with the Force.

End of session: Have 20 conflict. *entire table has apoplexy and says What!?*

was this a Published adventure.... something from the F&D book? or the GMs creation...

Dude, I would have walked out of that session and not come back. Life is too short for bad GMs and bad players.

I wouldn't have minded it as a Player Myself...

heck I have Woken up from a drugged induced, in an alley, a Stupor before to find myself Stripped of all goods and weary as all get out.....

I wasn't upset by it... Why? Because it can Happen in Real Life, To the most Highly trained operative.

A lot of players feel they have to have Control over every aspect of what happens to them and have a Good Chance to Stop it from happening..

What did Happen?

I got drugged with a ruffie at the bar.... by some one looking for something I had on me and they took everything to keep me from knowing what it was they were after...

It was part of the plot, and My character hadn't detected what or who did it to me...

Ofcourse it sucked to have lost all the equipment on me... but It was Heck of Fun and a Damned good motivation to figure out who did it and take them down...

Have fun with it.

I wasn't upset by it... Why? Because it can Happen in Real Life, To the most Highly trained operative.

You have to have trust between the GM and the players. If you have that, then you know it’s going to work out in the end, and the interesting bit is the story between.

I did have a GM who once told me:

It is my job to f*ck with your characters. The more I f*ck with with them, the more XP and money you can get.

All of the players as a group gave him a very rude awakening as a result of that.

To Snowdragon:

It was the GM's creation and, as I'm still playing in the campaign, I'm guessing it's part of the set up for the main plot payoff (we're only half a dozen sessions or so into it).

I only object to the issue with respect to the fact that it was such a substantial amount of conflict it jumped me from just under 50 morality all the way into Dark Side Paragon territory without me actually -doing- anything to prompt it. As a Grey Jedi (at the time, things have since been retconned - don't ask, too long a story), I would have lost all the benefits of my order by hitting either side of the Paragon triggers on the Morality scale. Since the chosen Order was a big part of the character concept (and the history of the game world, since this is the second campaign in that universe, 20 years after the first), losing the benefits of the Order permanently (since there's no way to go back to Grey once you hit either side) without any action on my part was.... irritating.

Things have since settled down and mistakes have been corrected, but it was a stunner out of left field along the same lines as what the OP seemed to be describing with respect to his looting changes which is why I brought it up in the first place as an example of a potential problem related to player Agency.

Understood Braendig..

Though I could see a Way for the GM to have accomplished the Same thing, without having caused such a grave issue to your character....

Perhaps even Making you THINK you had fallen to the darkside.

Glad it worked out for you :-)

How about this as an option for an EoTE / AoR force user (no FaD stuff): the GM can keep track of the dark side usage in the character and, if the player starts to rely on it too much, the GM can opt to give the player a 5 point Obligation (addiction). After all the dark side is quicker, easier, more seductive.

5 points isn't all that big a deal, so throwing it out as a surprise to the player doesn't completely suck. But if the player keeps tapping into those dark side pips it could grow and become a real burden on the group.

I did have a GM who once told me:

It is my job to f*ck with your characters. The more I f*ck with with them, the more XP and money you can get.

All of the players as a group gave him a very rude awakening as a result of that.

You know, I'm going to agree with your GM. He was completely right - at least the first half of his statement.

Now, hold on - put the pitchforks down.

When i build a character, they have a laundry list of buttons that an Evil GM can push. Home planets to invade, family to abuse and kidnap, psychological flaws waiting to be exploited, physical flaws that will cause trouble. I go into the game fully expecting the Evil GM to grab these story hooks and occasionally build a game around making this characters life hell. My Politico princess? We just got done dealing with a sith invasion of her homeworld, her sister being kidnapped, her uncle betraying her, all culminating in having to disband her family's 2,000 year old dynasty.

Saleena? Right now she's a train wreck. Me? I loved the hell out of it.

So yes, the secret of the GM f'ing with characters is that A) the player has to buy into this and B) it has to be a good story. Otherwise, the GM is just a Nimitz class douchenugget.

So yes, the secret of the GM f'ing with characters is that A) the player has to buy into this and B) it has to be a good story. Otherwise, the GM is just a Nimitz class douchenugget.

The problem is that neither A nor B usually happen under such circumstances.

They can, and that gets me back to the issue of needing trust between the GM and the player(s).