After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

What do you think?

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

I'd say that's an improvement. Personally I wouldn't give out positive dice for "no good deeds", but to balance that I wouldn't give Conflict for use of dark pips in and of themselves (though I might increase Conflict for the use of dark pips to do evil).

The reason for the mechanic is so that someone cannot game the system. As was common in previous games.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

Wouldn't it just be that -not- doing good deeds should generate conflict? And if the GM isn't producing situations where you are tested between doing what is right vs. what is easy, then I would say they aren't doing their job.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

I don't get how? It just reduces the "stroll to paragon" effect.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

How? The end of the table is the current die you roll by RAW.

I found more "gaming the system" to slap your droid in the face as punishment (that's wha he did), earn 2 Conflict but then roll 10 on the die because you are lucky and increase Morality by 8.

With rules as written you can actually be quite a douchebag and yet became a Light Paragon, as long as you "game the system" enought so that you don't earn enought Conflict to make the d10 roll a risk.

Because now they get to do good deeds to change what die they use. If i do good deeds I can counteract the bad deeds I did mentality is where this leads.

If you are allowing people to waltz on up to paragon... That is on the GM for not challenging the player. Give them lots of situations where the right decision is the harder path. A game mechanic wont fix this. You need to make it actually morally challenging to do the right thing. falling back to a mechanic will not fix this. You have to grow as a GM.

Because now they get to do good deeds to change what die they use. If i do good deeds I can counteract the bad deeds I did mentality is where this leads.

That's why it's a still random die rather than fixed Light Side Points VS Dark Side Points (this was another of my approaches but I discarded for that reason you mentioned). As long as the outcome is random I don't see it leading to the mentality you described.

Because now they get to do good deeds to change what die they use. If i do good deeds I can counteract the bad deeds I did mentality is where this leads.

But currently you already get a D10 no matter what you do...bad deeds or good. It's the only way to counter any Conflict you might accumulate.

By the OP, you'd only get the full D10 if you did something selfless (and presumably risky), so Conflict will be a lot harder to mitigate unless you really act like a paragon.

In my experience the d10 is fine. If you are challenging the player morally they will likely go up a couple points a session with a couple set backs and losing a few morallity. It is up to you the GM to provide them with enough moral challenges. That they get a couple conflict every session. Don't worry so much about the potential 10s on the die roll.

The reason for the mechanic is so that someone cannot game the system. As was common in previous games.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

How exactly does the d10 prevent gaming the system?

If anything it makes it easier.

The reason for the mechanic is so that someone cannot game the system. As was common in previous games.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

How exactly does the d10 prevent gaming the system?

If anything it makes it easier.

Because one can't know the outcome of the roll during the session. You might roll a 1 or you might roll a 10 or anything in between. Can you afford to get a couple conflict? Maybe. Maybe not. Because you do not know how the die roll will go till after the session you have no idea how much conflict you can afford to have in the session. But it also means you can usually afford a couple conflict. You are not required to be perfect. Because no one can be so if you keep aware and don't go hog wild. You should usually be able to go up in your morality if that is your desire as a player.

I recall reading somewhere in the GM section of the core that the d10 is to prevent predictability. Even if it's not necessarily gaming the system, no PC can actually predict that if they do this here and that other thing they will have gained so much Morality, or hit paragon in 2.5 sessions. It maintains an unknown element that is intended to add to the narrative.

To add to this, I believe the intention from the developers is that players will probably get more conflict than most GMs actually hand out, and more than a player thinks they want. I think many of us carry the binary dark side points/light side points mentality used in KotOR and other Star Wars games, so for players who prefer to go light, gaining conflict means they have fallen, even though it's not a sure thing.

The core problem with Morality is that a number of GMs don't hand out as much as they probably should, either because they flat out forget or in some cases they make allowances for "extenuating circumstances" that the rules aren't meant to allow.

Then again, if a player is willing to walk the straight and narrow, thus taking actions that would avoid earning Conflict even if it makes things harder for them by doing what is right as opposed to what is easy, then that player should be rewarded, which the system already does by way of a high d10 roll and few Conflict points allowing them to reach LS Paragon faster than a PC that generally nets 3 to 5 Conflict per session.

If the core concern with this proposed house rule is to slow down the race to LS Paragon status, then I suggest two things. The first is to make more active use of awarding Conflict in your games, and the second is to change the d10 from "end of the session" to "end of the adventure." I've been using "end of adventure" for my current FaD campaign, and it's made the players who prefer to be "white hats" think carefully about taking actions that could generate Conflict, while the player who prefers to walk the middle path between dark and light (though leaning a bit more towards dark) knows that he doesn't have to worry as much about his "hard work" being completely wiped out by a couple of high results on that d10.

The biggest potential for conflict comes from your Force powers. My players tend to shy away from using Force powers in my games. They're pretty disheartened about their low Force ratings so they don't even bother. Of course, I explained to them that you can always use those dark pips, but they're not buying it.

If I could get them to use the Force more, presenting many and varied moral conundrums wouldn't be such an imperative.

Honestly, if your character went 6 hours and only earned 2 conflict, you either didn't put him in enough morally challenging situations or he earned that 8 morality. I would honestly taper it down not to type of activity but in-game time covered. Like maybe roll morality for every week of in-game time or something like that. That would illustrate not only a character making a decision but, depending on how the d10 roll went, they might have decided that they made a good or bad decision based on weather they earned or lost morality. Then, that could help the player determine how his character should act in the future based on his or her ethics regarding the decisions they've been making.

Your mechanic actually results in more gaming of the system.

How? The end of the table is the current die you roll by RAW.

I found more "gaming the system" to slap your droid in the face as punishment (that's wha he did), earn 2 Conflict but then roll 10 on the die because you are lucky and increase Morality by 8.

With rules as written you can actually be quite a douchebag and yet became a Light Paragon, as long as you "game the system" enought so that you don't earn enought Conflict to make the d10 roll a risk.

I think I either read in the book, (or heard on the Order 66 podcast) that if things like this are happening then you should make those blatant shows of hatred, anger, passion, or otherwise blatantly immoral choices, earn more conflict. Make your players strive to avoid all kinds of evil if they want to reach paragon status. You are the GM, your ruling stands taller than any rule and if you say that slapping droids out of spite earns 8 conflict, then it does.

If your player has an issue then maybe you two need to have a separate conversation about the direction he or she is trying to take their character.

The biggest potential for conflict comes from your Force powers. My players tend to shy away from using Force powers in my games. They're pretty disheartened about their low Force ratings so they don't even bother. Of course, I explained to them that you can always use those dark pips, but they're not buying it.

If I could get them to use the Force more, presenting many and varied moral conundrums would be such an imperative.

Present them with situations where using the Force will solve the problem? Part of the problem that I've observed from various discussions though is honestly people just don't want to think about using the Force the way that FFG envisions it. Which is kinda sad since I think they've done one of the better jobs of getting the ebb and flow between light and dark that I've seen.

At any rate, trying telling them that using dark pips isn't calling on the darkside but calling forth raw passion and emotion. It's not so much dark as it might sometimes be questionable about why you did the action. Maybe remind them that using a couple of dark pips here and there isn't going to make them a bad guy and that the game intends for them to both rise and fall.

Honestly I think the biggest flaw of the Morality system is that it requires the players to play along with FFG's Force logic.

After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

What do you think?

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

What's to stop me from gaming your system by calculating how many bad deeds I can afford to do against what die I'm expecting to use at the end of the adventure? Like say I do two significant deeds? I know I'm using a d10 now ..... so now I know I can probably afford about 2 to 4 Conflict and not have to worry about lowering it.

I like it. I'm probably going to propose this to my group.

After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

What do you think?

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

What's to stop me from gaming your system by calculating how many bad deeds I can afford to do against what die I'm expecting to use at the end of the adventure? Like say I do two significant deeds? I know I'm using a d10 now ..... so now I know I can probably afford about 2 to 4 Conflict and not have to worry about lowering it.

The same thing that's stopping you from doing it currently. Except now, your character has performed two significantly good things that could potentially balance out his less moral actions. Currently, you can always just calculate that you can do about 2-4 conflict worth of badness without likely losing Morality.

Alternatively, you could play it more loosely. Continue to award conflict points as normal. Just assign whatever die you feel like the character should get at the end of the session based on how things went.

On another note, this probably fits player expectations better anyway. If most players seem to think that calling upon the dark side to use the force should be a weighty decision then why fight it?

I like it. I'm probably going to propose this to my group.

After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

What do you think?

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

What's to stop me from gaming your system by calculating how many bad deeds I can afford to do against what die I'm expecting to use at the end of the adventure? Like say I do two significant deeds? I know I'm using a d10 now ..... so now I know I can probably afford about 2 to 4 Conflict and not have to worry about lowering it.

The same thing that's stopping you from doing it currently. Except now, your character has performed two significantly good things that could potentially balance out his less moral actions. Currently, you can always just calculate that you can do about 2-4 conflict worth of badness without likely losing Morality.

Alternatively, you could play it more loosely. Continue to award conflict points as normal. Just assign whatever die you feel like the character should get at the end of the session based on how things went.

On another note, this probably fits player expectations better anyway. If most players seem to think that calling upon the dark side to use the force should be a weighty decision then why fight it?

My broader point was that you were doing goodness for the sake of getting a better die roll and thus the mechanic failed to represent a true juxtaposition between good and evil as was originally suggested in the initial post. Now that I know if I do 2 really good things I can get a d10 then I'm doing them for the sake of gaining a better die with the explicit purpose of only doing good to make sure my bad is counter weighted later. But if you're doing two good things just to get a d10 die then ..... are you really exploring the ups and downs of good vs evil actions? I think not.

Overall I don't see a juxtaposition between good and evil when the only reason to do good is to get that d10.

I like it. I'm probably going to propose this to my group.

After a couple of session I found that 1d10 is just to random to roll on every situation. For example, last session the group's Force-user earned 2 Conflict, did nothing else moralty significant, and still he rolled a 10 so he's supposed to increase Morality by 8? I think it's a bit much.

My first idea was roll Morality at the end of each adventure rather than session, but we play quite long sessions (6+ hours) so I don't think that'd work.

Finally, I came up with this idea that rather than a fixed d10, the die to roll is based on the character's morality positive good deeds (light side) decitions during the session, in the same way Conflict is gained when the character performs Dark Side actions. That way Morality increases or decreases as the juxtaposition of both Good and Bad actions.

This is very raw, but it'd work something like this:

No Good Deeds______ d2

Minor Good Deed_____d4

Two minor Deeds or Moderate Deed____d6

Two Moderate Deeds or Significant Deed ____ d8

Two Significant Deeds or Mayor Selfless Sacrifice _____ d10

What do you think?

[edit]

Just to be clear, you still only roll a single die. The table is not accumulative, you take the highest option.

What's to stop me from gaming your system by calculating how many bad deeds I can afford to do against what die I'm expecting to use at the end of the adventure? Like say I do two significant deeds? I know I'm using a d10 now ..... so now I know I can probably afford about 2 to 4 Conflict and not have to worry about lowering it.

The same thing that's stopping you from doing it currently. Except now, your character has performed two significantly good things that could potentially balance out his less moral actions. Currently, you can always just calculate that you can do about 2-4 conflict worth of badness without likely losing Morality.

Alternatively, you could play it more loosely. Continue to award conflict points as normal. Just assign whatever die you feel like the character should get at the end of the session based on how things went.

On another note, this probably fits player expectations better anyway. If most players seem to think that calling upon the dark side to use the force should be a weighty decision then why fight it?

My broader point was that you were doing goodness for the sake of getting a better die roll and thus the mechanic failed to represent a true juxtaposition between good and evil as was originally suggested in the initial post. Now that I know if I do 2 really good things I can get a d10 then I'm doing them for the sake of gaining a better die with the explicit purpose of only doing good to make sure my bad is counter weighted later. But if you're doing two good things just to get a d10 die then ..... are you really exploring the ups and downs of good vs evil actions? I think not.

Overall I don't see a juxtaposition between good and evil when the only reason to do good is to get that d10.

I can see your point. However, refraining from doing evil just so you don't earn conflict points is essentially the same thing. You don't like this idea because it makes it so people only do good to get a higher morality die. I like the idea because players who already cared about doing good will actually be rewarded for doing so. In my opinion, players who don't care about morality will continue to do so.

That's partially why I suggest not making it a hard list, but rather an arbitrary decision by the DM. Players who for some reason want to remain moral only by playing numbers games won't have a good way of tallying what they need to do except by general feel of how their character has performed.

I can see your point. However, refraining from doing evil just so you don't earn conflict points is essentially the same thing. You don't like this idea because it makes it so people only do good to get a higher morality die. I like the idea because players who already cared about doing good will actually be rewarded for doing so. In my opinion, players who don't care about morality will continue to do so.

That's partially why I suggest not making it a hard list, but rather an arbitrary decision by the DM. Players who for some reason want to remain moral only by playing numbers games won't have a good way of tallying what they need to do except by general feel of how their character has performed.

It's not that I dislike it. I just question whether or not it achieves the stated goal ( Morality increase/decrease based on juxtaposition between good and evil) or if it's just replicating the same problem in the opposite direction. It seems to just replicate the original problem that the OP has, but just does so from the POV of being a lightsider.

As for refraining from doing evil to avoid Conflict (though I use the term evil loosely here), if the GM is doing his job right the player is making a sacrifice so that he isn't gaining that Conflict. If a player is making said sacrifice to not gain Conflict then I essentially have no problem with them avoiding doing evil to avoid Conflict. The problem I'm observing is that people are avoiding Conflict by not doing evil .... but by the same token the GM isn't making the cost a real sacrifice so PC's find it easier to gain light side points down a journey that's meant to be hard. When the GM involves real sacrifices in the moral decisions that generate Conflict I think most of these issues will fix themselves.

Then again .... I don't feel players should be rewarded for doing good as you put it. Doing good is it's own reward. If you need some mechanical gimmick as a reward for doing good I question whether or not the PC is actually doing good.

Interesting thoughts in here. So thanks everyone for your imput.

How about, rather than the Die size be determined by good actions it's determined by how much impact did moral choices have on the session? That way you will roll d2, d4, d6, d8 or d10 based on how much moral choices the GM gives to the players, rather than how many good actions they performed. Maybe that's more in line with FFG's intent, and instead of being a player choice that can be gamed it's a GM choice based on his own design for the campaign.

Opinions?

Btw, I agree that maybe I'm not giving as much Conflict as I should. I also agree that my player kind thought he could game Conflict (before he read the rules he thought he could counterbalance "evil" decitions with good actions, because he's trying to be some kind of grey jedi that things evil actions are good if done for the right reasons... which, IMHO, it's the kind of behavior that leads right to the Dark Side). Maybe my houserule actually encourages this sort of mentality and behavior, which is kind what I tried to avoid in the first place. I just didn't want my player to think this was some kind of personal witchhunt or anything, and that I was being to strict with Morality on purpose.

On the other hand, it's a six player game with one a single Force-user, so sometimes I just forget to award Conflict. Mybe I'll just take a 5-minute break from time to time to award Conflict, so I don't forget.