Personally I would probably just consider a system where players with Morality begin a session with 5 conflict. Then have a system for players to remove conflict (playing up positive moralities). However doing so would pretty much require that the GM prepare opportunities for players to remove that conflict during the course of any session, which ultimately, can get a bit gamey.

Honestly, I don't see much reason to put too much weight in light side paragon status. If players aren't generating much conflict, then generally they're probably being a bit light-sidey, and so they get a free destiny point at start of session and +2 strain, oh boy.

That destiny point and +2 strain is the fuel they need to justify spending a destiny point to suffer strain and conflict to use dark side pips on a force roll.

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.

Yeah, while I appriciate the fact that getting good at using the force powers requires time and effort. It does feel like you would rather use some skill than unreliable force power, unless they REALLY have to (like when there is no other way to solve the sittuation).

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.

The original problem he posted is that someone gaining 2 conflict and rolling a 10 on morality seemed like it was a bit much. That is quite a swing, honestly. The dice mechanic proposed actually solves the stated problem. Now instead of a possible range of -1 to +8 the range would be -1 to 0 if a d2 is used. That's certainly less of a swing for someone who didn't do any positive moral actions. I think d2 is a little low. People would never use dark side pips. Worries about gaming the system were brought up by others.

Right now, by the current system, you do not have to make any sacrifice to gain tons of morality. The system proposed actually does what you want without having to rely on the GM forcing moral dilemmas down the players' throat like it's a KOTOR game. Do it every session and it can feel forced. Especially if only one character in the group uses morality. It's not necessarily due to GM laziness. Even in a moral situation, there should be a difference between being reasonable and being good. The best alternative I've seen mentioned is waiting til the end of the "adventure" to award morality, but that isn't always practical and is just buying time.

Say for instance you have a player who actively goes out of his way to not kill anyone in battle. How do you reward that behavior in the current system? Give conflict to everyone who doesn't refrain from killing? How much? If Jedi aren't allowed to kill anyone why do they carry around murder beams or even blasters? Does that really reflect morality in Star Wars?

Doing good should indeed be its own reward. However, since morality is supposed to be a reflection of the character, it should have an impact. As KommissarK points out. Light side paragon isn't the font of ultimate power or anything. If paragon status can't even really accurately describe someone who does good deeds, then what good is the morality system?

(Also, just fyi, I have nothing against you and I can see where you're coming from. Just making sure I'm not coming across too strong.)

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?

Then what happens if the player argues that you never offered them a d10 worthy event? It would seem your complicating your work now. When they make a bad choice you will then have to scramble to offer them an equally good choice to counter that bad choice. If you don't they can then claim that you are hindering their ability to balance out their actions.

The original problem he posted is that someone gaining 2 conflict and rolling a 10 on morality seemed like it was a bit much. That is quite a swing, honestly. The dice mechanic proposed actually solves the stated problem. Now instead of a possible range of -1 to +8 the range would be -1 to 0 if a d2 is used. That's certainly less of a swing for someone who didn't do any positive moral actions. I think d2 is a little low. People would never use dark side pips. Worries about gaming the system were brought up by others.

Well the swing isn't a big deal though. More so if you are effectively offering the characters moral choices. 2 points shouldn't be common. It should be closer to 4 to 5 which doesn't give much of a swing. But if a player is always just around 2 then the player may not be effectively challenged to make real moral choices. Or conversly if they are then they are making some hard sacrifices to stay at 2, at which point I think they've earned an 8 point swing (though I don't think an 8 point swing will be too common). 8 point swings only really become a problem when they are only generating 2 points of Conflict. But that shouldn't be common.

Right now, by the current system, you do not have to make any sacrifice to gain tons of morality. The system proposed actually does what you want without having to rely on the GM forcing moral dilemmas down the players' throat like it's a KOTOR game. Do it every session and it can feel forced. Especially if only one character in the group uses morality. It's not necessarily due to GM laziness. Even in a moral situation, there should be a difference between being reasonable and being good. The best alternative I've seen mentioned is waiting til the end of the "adventure" to award morality, but that isn't always practical and is just buying time.

The book pretty much spells out that these moral choices should involve sacrifices. Also, this is a game about moral choices soooooooo if you don't want moral dilemmas every game ..... you're kinda sorta playing in the wrong kind of Star Wars. I presume anyone who is making an F&D character is wanting to be presented with meaningful moral challenges. If not Saga, d20, and d6 all all you to play Force users without having to bother with moral dilemmas. Furthermore if you offer them dilemmas that are more in line with the 4-6 point range of Conflict you don't have to worry about offering a lot of them every game. And you avoid the 8 point swing that people seem to be afraid of.

Say for instance you have a player who actively goes out of his way to not kill anyone in battle. How do you reward that behavior in the current system?

I see no reason to reward that. It's a role play aspect of the character. Sure maybe every once in awhile they'll run into someone whom he spared and that person will repay that act of kindness but in general .... I don't see this as something deserving of a reward in the first place. If a player happens to do it when it's inconvenient to him and the party ..... I might consider an xp bonus for good role play. But otherwise .... not a rewardable act in my book.

If Jedi aren't allowed to kill anyone why do they carry around murder beams or even blasters? Does that really reflect morality in Star Wars?

No where does it say that Jedi aren't allowed to kill. They just prefer not to. Big difference. And their aversion to killing isn't presented in terms that would indicate that if they should kill that it would affect their morality. Otherwise Luke would have gone darksider after destroying the Death Star.

Doing good should indeed be its own reward. However, since morality is supposed to be a reflection of the character, it should have an impact. As KommissarK points out. Light side paragon isn't the font of ultimate power or anything. If paragon status can't even really accurately describe someone who does good deeds, then what good is the morality system?

It does have impact, when played up accordingly. I think paragon status does a good job, the problem seems to be that GM's are allowing for a lazy climb to Light side paragon. When it's easy there is no meaning to it. And changing the dice mechanic won't fix that.

(Also, just fyi, I have nothing against you and I can see where you're coming from. Just making sure I'm not coming across too strong.)

No worries, we're cool.

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.

Yeah, while I appriciate the fact that getting good at using the force powers requires time and effort. It does feel like you would rather use some skill than unreliable force power, unless they REALLY have to (like when there is no other way to solve the sittuation).

That sounds very much like it was the point with this system, that Force users didn't automatically start awesome, something that was a constant critique/complaint of the various d20 versions, with Saga being the most blatant.

Granted, the d20 versions were all seeking to capture the flavor of Prequel-Era Jedi, who benefited from a life time of focused training in the Force, something that PCs in Force and Destiny generally don't have the benefit of.

In some ways, I'm reminded of the approach that D6 Star Wars took, where a Force user PC generally didn't start all that skilled in the Force, and if they did, they paid for it by being very lacking in mundane skills as well as in core attributes if you wanted to begin with all three Force skills. WotC tried for something similar that with the OCR/RCR d20 versions, but fell a bit shy of the mark, as it was easy to max out the skill ranks for the Force skills you wanted to be good at (Guardians) or simply have plenty of skill points to spend (Consular and Force Adept). But with D6, even if you spent the majority of your starting skill ranks in boosting up your Force skills, you still weren't crazy capable with the Force, and it could take a lot of character points (that system's name for XP) to boost up those Force skills until you truly were capable of successfully using the majority of the Force powers out there.

To put the D6 approach of dumping your starting skill points into Force skills into terms of the FFG system, it'd be akin to starting at Force Rating 2, but only having three trained skill ranks when you start play. Yes, you'd be pretty capable with using the Force, but you'd have next to nothing for mundane skills. But you'd still have a ways to go before you were truly capable of reliably generating enough Force pips (about Force Rating 3 from what I've seen) for whatever effect you wanted.

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?

I would instead just keep a pad with the names of the characters who have morality and a copy of the morality chart and work at being better about awarding conflict than make it into a meta game that the players have to jump through hoops to satisfy your desire for them to do good deeds. Conflict and morality are not about doing good deeds. They are about making hard choices to do the right thing even when the right thing is the hard path.

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.

The original problem he posted is that someone gaining 2 conflict and rolling a 10 on morality seemed like it was a bit much. That is quite a swing, honestly. The dice mechanic proposed actually solves the stated problem. Now instead of a possible range of -1 to +8 the range would be -1 to 0 if a d2 is used. That's certainly less of a swing for someone who didn't do any positive moral actions. I think d2 is a little low. People would never use dark side pips. Worries about gaming the system were brought up by others.

Right now, by the current system, you do not have to make any sacrifice to gain tons of morality. The system proposed actually does what you want without having to rely on the GM forcing moral dilemmas down the players' throat like it's a KOTOR game. Do it every session and it can feel forced. Especially if only one character in the group uses morality. It's not necessarily due to GM laziness. Even in a moral situation, there should be a difference between being reasonable and being good. The best alternative I've seen mentioned is waiting til the end of the "adventure" to award morality, but that isn't always practical and is just buying time.

Say for instance you have a player who actively goes out of his way to not kill anyone in battle. How do you reward that behavior in the current system? Give conflict to everyone who doesn't refrain from killing? How much? If Jedi aren't allowed to kill anyone why do they carry around murder beams or even blasters? Does that really reflect morality in Star Wars?

Doing good should indeed be its own reward. However, since morality is supposed to be a reflection of the character, it should have an impact. As KommissarK points out. Light side paragon isn't the font of ultimate power or anything. If paragon status can't even really accurately describe someone who does good deeds, then what good is the morality system?

(Also, just fyi, I have nothing against you and I can see where you're coming from. Just making sure I'm not coming across too strong.)

If this is happening the GM is not putting hard enough moral choices in front of the players. Make the players earn their morality increases. Don't make it a cake walk. Make doing the right thing the hard choice.

There's a really easy method I learned for putting your PCs in a moral dilemma. You can't pull this trick out every session, but it's easy enough to have happen every few adventures.

When an NPC exceeds their wound threshold, it's entirely within the GMs purview to have them fall unconscious rather than drop dead. Let it happen every so often. When the character drops and the swords/guns are sheathed, tell the PCs they hear one of the opponents groaning in pain. This person is completely at their mercy. Leaving him for dead would surely doom them. Killing him may seem like an act of mercy, but at this point you are killing a defenseless opponent, much like Anakin did to Dooku. However, he's not beyond medical treatment. If you can get him some help, he might yet still live.

Leaving him to die: 3-5 conflict (GM's discretion)

Finishing the job: 10 conflict

Treating their wounds or taking them to a doctor: 0 conflict.

Remember, other members of the party could potentially gain conflict as well, if they knowingly allow one of the PCs to finish him off.

Well the swing isn't a big deal though. More so if you are effectively offering the characters moral choices. 2 points shouldn't be common. It should be closer to 4 to 5 which doesn't give much of a swing. But if a player is always just around 2 then the player may not be effectively challenged to make real moral choices. Or conversly if they are then they are making some hard sacrifices to stay at 2, at which point I think they've earned an 8 point swing (though I don't think an 8 point swing will be too common). 8 point swings only really become a problem when they are only generating 2 points of Conflict. But that shouldn't be common.

Well, that's great and all, but it's not like the book spells out anywhere they should be collecting 4 to 5 points each session. Maybe implied by the d10 each session, but even so, most players don't expect to be getting that much conflict each session going in. A session where nothing much happens isn't desirable, of course, but the book itself only prescribes 1 conflict for inaction.

The book pretty much spells out that these moral choices should involve sacrifices. Also, this is a game about moral choices soooooooo if you don't want moral dilemmas every game ..... you're kinda sorta playing in the wrong kind of Star Wars. I presume anyone who is making an F&D character is wanting to be presented with meaningful moral challenges. If not Saga, d20, and d6 all all you to play Force users without having to bother with moral dilemmas. Furthermore if you offer them dilemmas that are more in line with the 4-6 point range of Conflict you don't have to worry about offering a lot of them every game. And you avoid the 8 point swing that people seem to be afraid of.

Who says this game is about moral choice? It's a game about Star Wars with a focus on the force. The Morality system within it is a mechanic that covers moral dilemma. Morality comes into play with the force, but not everyone thinks the Morality system as is accurately reflects how the force and morality work together. So, I'll appreciate it if people stop telling me to play a different game. You all earn 1 conflict for being insulting.

I see no reason to reward that. It's a role play aspect of the character. Sure maybe every once in awhile they'll run into someone whom he spared and that person will repay that act of kindness but in general .... I don't see this as something deserving of a reward in the first place. If a player happens to do it when it's inconvenient to him and the party ..... I might consider an xp bonus for good role play. But otherwise .... not a rewardable act in my book.

Really? Ignore reward/punishment. We're not talking about that. Is a character who bothers to save even the lives of his enemies more or less of a moral person than the rest of the party who just kills all of their enemies? Does the current system reflect this?

No where does it say that Jedi aren't allowed to kill. They just prefer not to. Big difference. And their aversion to killing isn't presented in terms that would indicate that if they should kill that it would affect their morality. Otherwise Luke would have gone darksider after destroying the Death Star.

Exactly! So how would you reflect that a character who strives to not kill even his enemies is more moral than the other party members in this regard? Preservation of life and redemption are things portrayed in the movies. Does that not fall in line with the proposed situation?

It's certainly not that the others are wrong. Otherwise we'd award conflict anytime the characters killed anyone in battle.

It does have impact, when played up accordingly. I think paragon status does a good job, the problem seems to be that GM's are allowing for a lazy climb to Light side paragon. When it's easy there is no meaning to it. And changing the dice mechanic won't fix that.

Well, I think what was mentioned is that it's not such a huge impact that people need to actively worry about Paragon status for balance purposes. Yes, extra Destiny points and extra strain are definitely noticeable.

As far as it being an accurate portrayal of moral status, I disagree. At least, from a certain point of view. Right now the current system awards morality in a negative fashion. If you don't do bad things you'll get morality. That's not how most people view actual morality. Generally people view it as a balance of good deeds versus bad deeds. Doing good as well as not doing bad makes you a moral person. This version of morality is kinda like THAC0 in its unintuitiveness. This leads to many people wondering why they're suddenly becoming paragons because they're not being awarded enough conflict. The alteration of the dice mechanics does solve this or, at the least, mitigates it.

I'm not trying to say the current system sucks. It doesn't, but I'm not gonna put it up on a pedestal.

If this is happening the GM is not putting hard enough moral choices in front of the players. Make the players earn their morality increases. Don't make it a cake walk. Make doing the right thing the hard choice.

Why's it always gotta be like that. Can't it be that the morality system just doesn't jive with the way the players or GM thinks morality should work. It seems to be a common problem.

There's a really easy method I learned for putting your PCs in a moral dilemma. You can't pull this trick out every session, but it's easy enough to have happen every few adventures.

When an NPC exceeds their wound threshold, it's entirely within the GMs purview to have them fall unconscious rather than drop dead. Let it happen every so often. When the character drops and the swords/guns are sheathed, tell the PCs they hear one of the opponents groaning in pain. This person is completely at their mercy. Leaving him for dead would surely doom them. Killing him may seem like an act of mercy, but at this point you are killing a defenseless opponent, much like Anakin did to Dooku. However, he's not beyond medical treatment. If you can get him some help, he might yet still live.

Leaving him to die: 3-5 conflict (GM's discretion)

Finishing the job: 10 conflict

Treating their wounds or taking them to a doctor: 0 conflict.

Remember, other members of the party could potentially gain conflict as well, if they knowingly allow one of the PCs to finish him off.

Personally, I wouldn't award that much conflict for finishing him off. Leaving him to die slowly seems like the more cruel decision. Depends on the PC's reasoning for killing the guy. Even then, I wouldn't call it outright murder if the victim was actively trying to kill me moments before.

Anyway, yeah I've used this scenario myself. It's easy to add in. Also, it's easy to forget you can tempt the party to negate the consequences of fear checks by taking conflict instead, if I remember right.

Well, that's great and all, but it's not like the book spells out anywhere they should be collecting 4 to 5 points each session. Maybe implied by the d10 each session, but even so, most players don't expect to be getting that much conflict each session going in. A session where nothing much happens isn't desirable, of course, but the book itself only prescribes 1 conflict for inaction.

I think when you consider the math and the book explaining the challenges that are supposed to be involved I think it's safe to assume. Though I'm of the personal opinion that most players just don't get how the Force works in this game and their aversion to anything "evil" prevents them from truly exploring what is being offered here.

Who says this game is about moral choice?

They called it Morality. They focused on the battle between Light and Dark. I'm not sure how much more clear they can make the moral dynamic of F&D more clear.

So, I'll appreciate it if people stop telling me to play a different game.

You described moral dilemmas as being force down peoples throat as if it was KotoR. If you don't agree with a fundamental mechanic of the game then this game may not in fact be for you. If this game is designed to explore morality and you think exploring morality is a pain then you would be better suited at games that don't make that an aspect of using the Force in their game.

It would be akin to complaining about Humanity in a VtM game. If you disagree with the nature of Humanity then VtM may not be your brand of horror. Maybe try WtA or MtA which don't feature Humanity as an aspect. Same basic premise.

Really? Ignore reward/punishment. We're not talking about that. Is a character who bothers to save even the lives of his enemies more or less of a moral person than the rest of the party who just kills all of their enemies? Does the current system reflect this?

According to Star Wars the answer is they are the same. Luke Skywalker is not made out to be less moral than Han Solo. But Luke racked up a whole lot more kills than Han and Leia and pretty much any character in the movie combined. Since we aren't judging morality based on whether or not you kill in the first place the nature of those kills would need to factor in. If the party is starting and picking fights and killing people they will naturally gain Conflict. If they are killing people who attacked them first then there is no moral grounds for change. Sparing your enemies is a good thing, and it can be rewarded but given the nature of this type of storytelling killing the bad guys isn't less moral than letting them live.

Now if we were discussing VtM, in which the taking of life period is a deciding factor in whether or not a person will have to make a Humanity check I would then agree that the party member who isn't killing is more moral than those that are. But that system is set up in which the actual death of your enemies has bearing on your morality.

Exactly! So how would you reflect that a character who strives to not kill even his enemies is more moral than the other party members in this regard? Preservation of life and redemption are things portrayed in the movies. Does that not fall in line with the proposed situation?

I wouldn't, mostly because based on everything we see in Star Wars you're not more moral for not killing. There are factors that could make a difference, ie if the PC's decide to straight up assassinate someone but in general choosing to spare an enemies life is an RP choice, not a moral one. PC's don't gain Conflict for killing their enemies so there is no need to mechanically reflect a PC that opts to not kill at all.

If Star Wars didn't permit so many of it's heroes kill I'd might feel differently. But Luke kills millions of people when he destroys the Death Star and at no point is it ever indicated he is a less moral person than Leia who killed no one.

As far as it being an accurate portrayal of moral status, I disagree. At least, from a certain point of view. Right now the current system awards morality in a negative fashion. If you don't do bad things you'll get morality. That's not how most people view actual morality. Generally people view it as a balance of good deeds versus bad deeds. Doing good as well as not doing bad makes you a moral person. This version of morality is kinda like THAC0 in its unintuitiveness. This leads to many people wondering why they're suddenly becoming paragons because they're not being awarded enough conflict. The alteration of the dice mechanics does solve this or, at the least, mitigates it.

Actually if you don't do evil things your morality stays the same. And frankly people who view morality as "if you don't do bad things then you're moral" are wrong. But I'm not going to digress into a philosophical debate on the nature of being a moral human being. You only roll for Morality if the character actually does things to gain Conflict. Therefore not doing evil keeps you at the same level as when you started playing. Your Morality can only go up by making morally conflicted choices in the game. The problem also seems to be that people equate gaining Conflict as being EVIL when in reality it's just engaging in less than ideal actions. Which is why when you do so, sometimes your Morality will go up and sometimes your Morality goes down. This represents the character being able to come to terms with his actions. It's random so a character will never know upfront if doing something bad and morally conflicting will result in good or bad things. But this allows an excellent chance to explore doing bad things for good reasons. It does a very good job of shifting through how that will or will not pay off in the long term.

The Morality mechanic requires people to merely not do bad things. Otherwise you don't get to even roll for Morality. The Morality mechanic requires an exploration of doing morally conflicting things to see what kind of person that makes you. Frankly I think most peoples views on morals are wrong and that leads to why so many people have issues with the Morality mechanic and need some kind of mechanical reward for doing good deeds.

I'm not trying to say the current system sucks. It doesn't, but I'm not gonna put it up on a pedestal.

I'm not putting it on a pedistal. But I think peoples aversion to gaining Conflict, using dark pips, and GM's not actually creating real sacrifices for being good is what is causing the problem, not the fact that you roll a d10 and you only gain Conflict for one thing as opposed to being good.

I think when you consider the math and the book explaining the challenges that are supposed to be involved I think it's safe to assume. Though I'm of the personal opinion that most players just don't get how the Force works in this game and their aversion to anything "evil" prevents them from truly exploring what is being offered here.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that. I just take it a step further and say it's not intuitive to how people perceive morality in Star Wars.

They called it Morality. They focused on the battle between Light and Dark. I'm not sure how much more clear they can make the moral dynamic of F&D more clear.

Well, last I checked they called it Star Wars: Force and Destiny. I read the introduction. They don't put a huge emphasis on morality when talking about what the game is about. It's not entirely absent, but it's not something you'd expect to have to micromanage from reading the intro.

You described moral dilemmas as being force down peoples throat as if it was KotoR. If you don't agree with a fundamental mechanic of the game then this game may not in fact be for you. If this game is designed to explore morality and you think exploring morality is a pain then you would be better suited at games that don't make that an aspect of using the Force in their game.

It would be akin to complaining about Humanity in a VtM game. If you disagree with the nature of Humanity then VtM may not be your brand of horror. Maybe try WtA or MtA which don't feature Humanity as an aspect. Same basic premise.

The intro to the game states that F&D campaigns can go in the direction of being morality focused or not. Doesn't seem like a fundamental mechanic with which I MUST use in order to play F&D. Not familiar enough with VtM to comment on that.

Even so, I can use Morality but still think it's flawed. What if I want morality in my games, but would prefer it to function in a manner more in line with how most people would expect it to work? Am I not LoL enough to play in the DotA championships?

According to Star Wars the answer is they are the same. Luke Skywalker is not made out to be less moral than Han Solo. But Luke racked up a whole lot more kills than Han and Leia and pretty much any character in the movie combined. Since we aren't judging morality based on whether or not you kill in the first place the nature of those kills would need to factor in. If the party is starting and picking fights and killing people they will naturally gain Conflict. If they are killing people who attacked them first then there is no moral grounds for change. Sparing your enemies is a good thing, and it can be rewarded but given the nature of this type of storytelling killing the bad guys isn't less moral than letting them live.

Now if we were discussing VtM, in which the taking of life period is a deciding factor in whether or not a person will have to make a Humanity check I would then agree that the party member who isn't killing is more moral than those that are. But that system is set up in which the actual death of your enemies has bearing on your morality.

Alright, so you see how that might be confusing to most people, right? Someone who is putting more effort into the preservation of life (be it diving into a burning building or actively subduing instead of killing enemies) is not considered to have done something more moral than an unknowing standerby in the current system. In fact, if he didn't do anything that could earn him conflict he'll gain absolutely no morality from being a merciful hero. Perhaps we should play VtM:F&D?

Hell, sparing your enemies is a major point for Luke. The entire last duel is practically about trying to goad Luke into killing his padre. Daddy issues, M I RITE?

I wouldn't, mostly because based on everything we see in Star Wars you're not more moral for not killing. There are factors that could make a difference, ie if the PC's decide to straight up assassinate someone but in general choosing to spare an enemies life is an RP choice, not a moral one. PC's don't gain Conflict for killing their enemies so there is no need to mechanically reflect a PC that opts to not kill at all.

If Star Wars didn't permit so many of it's heroes kill I'd might feel differently. But Luke kills millions of people when he destroys the Death Star and at no point is it ever indicated he is a less moral person than Leia who killed no one.

Well, there's a reason why droids and faceless dudes in helmets are the bad guys. Then again, there are instances where they allow their enemies the chance to surrender when they don't gotta. I mean it turned out well for Mace and all, but they do spare lives. In fact, they kill remarkably few people in most of the movies. Except for Luke, that nefarious bastard.

Sure, but he's definitely more moral than a storm trooper just doing his job. Leia isn't really a F&D character is she? More of an AoE character. In fact, Luke might not be til the Empire or RotJ. Anyway, you're not truly arguing that it's totally the same if you kill your enemies or not just to say the Morality system has no flaws, right?

Actually if you don't do evil things your morality stays the same. And frankly people who view morality as "if you don't do bad things then you're moral" are wrong. But I'm not going to digress into a philosophical debate on the nature of being a moral human being.

Nope, that's why most people view it as a collective balance of all good and bad things you've done. Do the most good and least harm sort of deal. If you do no harm and lots of good then it's pretty clear where you stand. I'm not saying that's my view, but I suspect that's Joe Blow the Street Mechanic's view.

You only roll for Morality if the character actually does things to gain Conflict. Therefore not doing evil keeps you at the same level as when you started playing. Your Morality can only go up by making morally conflicted choices in the game. The problem also seems to be that people equate gaining Conflict as being EVIL when in reality it's just engaging in less than ideal actions. Which is why when you do so, sometimes your Morality will go up and sometimes your Morality goes down. This represents the character being able to come to terms with his actions. It's random so a character will never know upfront if doing something bad and morally conflicting will result in good or bad things. But this allows an excellent chance to explore doing bad things for good reasons. It does a very good job of shifting through how that will or will not pay off in the long term.

So what you're saying is only people who feel guilty can go up in the Morality system. I'm glad I saved the rebel base from being blown up, but man do I feel bad about telling Leia her hair was dumb. Actually maybe I should be feeling bad fer all dem dere Stormies I just blowed up. I suppose Yoda did earn a bit of conflict eating those protein bars outta Luke's survival kit. Anyway, so how does altering the dice ruin this mechanic for you? In fact, how does this not grant the additional depth of good deeds being meaningful as well as allowing for conflicted emotions? Still a dice roll that caps at 10.

The Morality mechanic requires people to merely not do bad things. Otherwise you don't get to even roll for Morality. The Morality mechanic requires an exploration of doing morally conflicting things to see what kind of person that makes you. Frankly I think most peoples views on morals are wrong and that leads to why so many people have issues with the Morality mechanic and need some kind of mechanical reward for doing good deeds.

Well, if the system outright refuses to acknowledge the difference between a character who slapped a droid and a character who used a dark side pip to save a speeder full of nuns then I'm just not for it. Call me crazy, but I feel like one character is more moral than the other. If it conflicts with most people's views on morality then doesn't that make it unintuitive?

I'm not putting it on a pedistal. But I think peoples aversion to gaining Conflict, using dark pips, and GM's not actually creating real sacrifices for being good is what is causing the problem, not the fact that you roll a d10 and you only gain Conflict for one thing as opposed to being good.

Well, considering how much the movies play up using the Dark side of the force being bad, can you blame them? Conflict is how your character moves towards the Dark side in this game. Players feel like they're being punished when they're awarded conflict. Which isn't really tempting now, is it? You have to make it worthwhile, but takes alot of focus on one aspect of F&D which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Which is especially cumbersome when you've got a mix of characters from all 3 lines of books. While changing the dice for morality rolls won't fix that issue, it does mitigate people meandering up to Paragon just because they actively avoid conflict.

Well, last I checked they called it Star Wars: Force and Destiny. I read the introduction. They don't put a huge emphasis on morality when talking about what the game is about. It's not entirely absent, but it's not something you'd expect to have to micromanage from reading the intro.

When you create a system for determining light siders and dark siders and call it Morality then you have pretty much said morality is the cornerstone of your idea of Star Wars. Being as how the central for Force users is between light and dark I would think that they wouldn't have to beat people over the head that morality plays strongly in what is supposed to be done.

Doesn't seem like a fundamental mechanic with which I MUST use in order to play F&D.

I guess if you opt to not bother with the Light vs Dark you won't need. I'm sure that will have it's own set of consequence and takes the flavor out of some specs.

Nope, that's why most people view it as a collective balance of all good and bad things you've done. Do the most good and least harm sort of deal. If you do no harm and lots of good then it's pretty clear where you stand. I'm not saying that's my view, but I suspect that's Joe Blow the Street Mechanic's view.

I find the POV of Joe Blow the Street Mechanic to not be all that enlighten on such matters so I tend to not bother discussing moral issues with people who would be considered Joe Blow

So what you're saying is only people who feel guilty can go up in the Morality system.

Not about guilty. It's about final resolution. Final resolution could involve guilt, comfort, crying, thinking what you did was awesome. But not it's not about guilt. But you know ...... you would at least have to have done something that might have made you feel guilty in the first place. In the long run though it's about the internal generated when you perform these actions. That's why when you do something "bad" it's not a promise that you'll drop.

Well, if the system outright refuses to acknowledge the difference between a character who slapped a droid and a character who used a dark side pip to save a speeder full of nuns then I'm just not for it. Call me crazy, but I feel like one character is more moral than the other. If it conflicts with most people's views on morality then doesn't that make it unintuitive?

Slapping a droid isn't going to gain you Conflict therefore no real roll. Thus he's moot Also you seem to look at this in a flawed way. You saved some kids by using a dark side pip. You now have Conflict. But the fate of your Morality is not predetermined. It could go up. It could go down. In the end the character could find out that the cosmos judge his use of dark pips as being morally ok in this situation.

Ultimate we'll never know where that action stands until Conflicted is rolled at the end of the night. It could turn out that using the darkside was ultimately a bad thing (lose Morality). On the flipside saving those kids was worth it and it could be argued the good act of saving those kids is what kept him on the right side of it (even though it really was just randomness).

Well, considering how much the movies play up using the Dark side of the force being bad, can you blame them? Conflict is how your character moves towards the Dark side in this game. Players feel like they're being punished when they're awarded conflict. Which isn't really tempting now, is it? You have to make it worthwhile, but takes alot of focus on one aspect of F&D which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Which is especially cumbersome when you've got a mix of characters from all 3 lines of books. While changing the dice for morality rolls won't fix that issue, it does mitigate people meandering up to Paragon just because they actively avoid conflict.

Yes actually. What's the point of role play if you're just going to doggedly do the good thing and not explore the possibilities opened up by a new system. Also Conflict is how you change Morality period. Without it you're also not moving towards the light side either. You just are. As for players feeling like they are being punished they need to adopt the mindset of this game. Playing this game and treating darkside/lightside mechanics as if you were in another game is your own problem and one that prevents you from making the most out of a new experience. Taking Conflict isn't a punishment. If you think it is, then maybe this game isn't for you.

Also I'm going to echo others here when I say, a GM doing his job right wont have PC's meandering up to Paragon by avoiding Conflict. That should only happen in games where the GM isn't doing his part. I don't see a mechanic is flawed due to human error.

Anyway, so how does altering the dice ruin this mechanic for you?

Never said it ruined anything. I just said I do not think it achieve the goal they set out to do.

In fact, how does this not grant the additional depth of good deeds being meaningful as well as allowing for conflicted emotions? Still a dice roll that caps at 10.

As I explained, if you need to create a mechanical gimmick to reward good actions then you're not really doing good in a meaningful way. The game already has a way for showing how good deeds are meaningful. You have less Conflict overall. The problem seems to be that people want good deeds to translate into gaining more light sided points. But the truth is evil deeds don't make you anymore prone to go dark. By shifting the dice pool around you promise the good paragon in a way that you don't for the darkside option.

At the end of the day it's gimmicky way to make people feel like their good actions matter. So that being good pays off. But I don't beleive that being good needs to mechanically pay off. If you want a mechanical payout for your good deeds then I question whether or not your really doing good deeds

Well, last I checked they called it Star Wars: Force and Destiny. I read the introduction. They don't put a huge emphasis on morality when talking about what the game is about. It's not entirely absent, but it's not something you'd expect to have to micromanage from reading the intro.

When you create a system for determining light siders and dark siders and call it Morality then you have pretty much said morality is the cornerstone of your idea of Star Wars. Being as how the central for Force users is between light and dark I would think that they wouldn't have to beat people over the head that morality plays strongly in what is supposed to be done.

I don't think it needs to be accounted for in every session though. The current mechanic forces the story to be all about that in a way that is constraining. The argument that I'm supposed to impose more Conflict-driven choices just to cater to a mechanic so the player doesn't stroll to paragon is just silly. I would have preferred a looser mechanic, so that people who want to play bean-counting morality games can still do so, but the rest of us can get on with telling a story.

Well, last I checked they called it Star Wars: Force and Destiny. I read the introduction. They don't put a huge emphasis on morality when talking about what the game is about. It's not entirely absent, but it's not something you'd expect to have to micromanage from reading the intro.

When you create a system for determining light siders and dark siders and call it Morality then you have pretty much said morality is the cornerstone of your idea of Star Wars. Being as how the central for Force users is between light and dark I would think that they wouldn't have to beat people over the head that morality plays strongly in what is supposed to be done.

I don't think it needs to be accounted for in every session though. The current mechanic forces the story to be all about that in a way that is constraining. The argument that I'm supposed to impose more Conflict-driven choices just to cater to a mechanic so the player doesn't stroll to paragon is just silly. I would have preferred a looser mechanic, so that people who want to play bean-counting morality games can still do so, but the rest of us can get on with telling a story.

I've never been a fan of turning "morality" into an accounting exercise.

I don't think it makes for a good game when players (GM included) get wrapped up in "moral calculus" and "ethical quibbling" over the character's actions. OMMV. I think it's far better to show the moral, ethical, and social implications of a character's actions through the consequences, and in the way that the other characters react to that person over time.

And as some have noted, when you give morality a simple sliding numerical scale and attach any benefit or drawback to it, you've immediately tempted a portion of the playerbase to stop playing their character's moral makeup and "journey", and instead "game the system" to make their character more powerful or effective.

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.

Yeah, while I appriciate the fact that getting good at using the force powers requires time and effort. It does feel like you would rather use some skill than unreliable force power, unless they REALLY have to (like when there is no other way to solve the sittuation).

That sounds very much like it was the point with this system, that Force users didn't automatically start awesome, something that was a constant critique/complaint of the various d20 versions, with Saga being the most blatant.

Granted, the d20 versions were all seeking to capture the flavor of Prequel-Era Jedi, who benefited from a life time of focused training in the Force, something that PCs in Force and Destiny generally don't have the benefit of.

In some ways, I'm reminded of the approach that D6 Star Wars took, where a Force user PC generally didn't start all that skilled in the Force, and if they did, they paid for it by being very lacking in mundane skills as well as in core attributes if you wanted to begin with all three Force skills. WotC tried for something similar that with the OCR/RCR d20 versions, but fell a bit shy of the mark, as it was easy to max out the skill ranks for the Force skills you wanted to be good at (Guardians) or simply have plenty of skill points to spend (Consular and Force Adept). But with D6, even if you spent the majority of your starting skill ranks in boosting up your Force skills, you still weren't crazy capable with the Force, and it could take a lot of character points (that system's name for XP) to boost up those Force skills until you truly were capable of successfully using the majority of the Force powers out there.

To put the D6 approach of dumping your starting skill points into Force skills into terms of the FFG system, it'd be akin to starting at Force Rating 2, but only having three trained skill ranks when you start play. Yes, you'd be pretty capable with using the Force, but you'd have next to nothing for mundane skills. But you'd still have a ways to go before you were truly capable of reliably generating enough Force pips (about Force Rating 3 from what I've seen) for whatever effect you wanted.

Yeah, I like it better than the d20 system had for sure. It did feel almost too easy. But I can see why people are frustrated about it, when upping your normal skills is so much easier. AND if you happen to put points to force tree that's about lightsabers, you still have to go and get 2 more skill trees to get more proficient with the force, even when you might have already mastered 3 force powers, so it is KINDA silly.

This was one of the things that puzzled me about it at first. Until someone pointed out that these trees were out of balance when you were able to earn a Force die from them.

Well, last I checked they called it Star Wars: Force and Destiny. I read the introduction. They don't put a huge emphasis on morality when talking about what the game is about. It's not entirely absent, but it's not something you'd expect to have to micromanage from reading the intro.

When you create a system for determining light siders and dark siders and call it Morality then you have pretty much said morality is the cornerstone of your idea of Star Wars. Being as how the central for Force users is between light and dark I would think that they wouldn't have to beat people over the head that morality plays strongly in what is supposed to be done.

I don't think it needs to be accounted for in every session though. The current mechanic forces the story to be all about that in a way that is constraining. The argument that I'm supposed to impose more Conflict-driven choices just to cater to a mechanic so the player doesn't stroll to paragon is just silly. I would have preferred a looser mechanic, so that people who want to play bean-counting morality games can still do so, but the rest of us can get on with telling a story.

I occupy a similar position. There are people out there who want to play jedi -- or aspiring jedi -- but don't want to focus the entire game on the struggle between light and dark. Maybe they don't want to worry about it at all. Maybe they want it to be present in the game, but to be something of a secondary matter. Different people want morality present to different extents, and to say that anyone who doesn't want the game to revolve around morality at the very heart of the game possibly shouldn't be playing this game at all is kind of harsh. I'm comfortable with morality-centered games being a way to play -- even the default way to play -- but I don't think they should be the only way to play. People who want to play jedi without "playing kotor," so to speak, shouldn't necessarily be banished to older, out of print Star Wars games.

What I like about the different-dice-for-good-deeds house rule is that it can allow for a middle ground. It allows for a morality system that doesn't take an express lane to paragon just because the people playing aren't focusing heavily on moral choice situations. Is it the only fix? No. Is it necessarily the best fix? No. Is a fix always even necessary? No. But it works for some groups with some priorities. And that's a good thing.

And as some have noted, when you give morality a simple sliding numerical scale and attach any benefit or drawback to it, you've immediately tempted a portion of the playerbase to stop playing their character's moral makeup and "journey", and instead "game the system" to make their character more powerful or effective.

^ this. That said, I do find some utility in having a scale, but only in so far as establishing dramatic thresholds. Has the PC done something terrible? Are they dancing on the edge of the dark side precipice, such that they do one more thing and they're lost? IMHO, you can't move away from the edge (or be redeemed) without a major selfless effort combined with new overall behaviour. But in this bean-counting system, you can actually just grind your way back by sheer luck.

I would have almost preferred a colour scale than a numeric one, and a simple slider that can be adjusted directly based on the character's actions, rather than some pointless randomizing mechanic. I would only adjust the slider when the action warrants some kind of response, as small acts of niceness or crankiness would be ignored. Basically, get rid of Conflict, and adjust Morality directly. You might be a paragon, but if you murder someone in cold blood, that's it, you're on the dark side now. Being a paragon should be really hard and require repeated/continual acts of selflessness.

And just to add to what was said earlier, I think the whole Morality thing is overblown. Yes, it can be one pillar of a Star Wars story, but it's a broad overarching theme. It doesn't have to invade the minutia of every session. Most of the movies and TCW only make it an issue sporadically and appropriately, during the dramatic moments of character development, not every "encounter".

Aye, and often within the movies themselves we see characters making a dramatic shift despite skirting the darkside.

Lucas didn't make Luke wear white under his pitch black outfit for no reason. XD

Aye, and often within the movies themselves we see characters making a dramatic shift despite skirting the darkside.

Lucas didn't make Luke wear white under his pitch black outfit for no reason. XD

The broader material is FULL of Force-users who "dance with the dark side" and don't turn into "megalomaniacal murder hobos". Quillan Vos, Mace Windu, etc, etc, etc.

This isnt a comment on the house rule at hand, but more just general: I've always wondered why some people are so intent on stopping the stroll to paragon-ness. It's not like you get a hundred experience and a crate full of puppies or something. A little bit extra strain and an additional Destiny Point isn't going to move the needle that much, as far as game breakers go.

Is this more of a big deal than I'm seeing?

This isnt a comment on the house rule at hand, but more just general: I've always wondered why some people are so intent on stopping the stroll to paragon-ness. It's not like you get a hundred experience and a crate full of puppies or something. A little bit extra strain and an additional Destiny Point isn't going to move the needle that much, as far as game breakers go.

Is this more of a big deal than I'm seeing?

It doesn't bother me mechanically. It bothers me because I feel it's stupid. I think Light Side Paragon is something you should work to achieve bit by bit by making the right choices.

That's why I proposed using different dice based on the player's actions.

Btw, has anyone tried to just reduce the default d10 to a d6 instead? If so, how did it turned out? I saw someone proposing that houserule a while back on this forum.

The one thing I keep seeing here is Lightside Paragon should be hard to get to when in truth you can start the game as one.

Paragon is not a goal its a bonus for not being an evil youngling killer.

The system for Morality works fine to portray the struggles of a force user.

The more power (normally) a Jedi get the less tempted he is to use that darkside pip

but at early levels when he had one or two force dice its tempting a he!!.

In games I've played in the Jedi/Force uses would average around 4-5 conflict per game, but as the game went on( the game ran for about a year) the number of conflict dropped to and average of 2-3 (he had gotting 3 force dice by then)

so I don't see any Imbalance as the game portrays the early temptations well and without a external stimulus (emperor, mother killed) It show how the pull of the darkside tempers off as you advance.

Outside of the game context, "paragon" means something exemplary, well above and beyond the norm. Personally I'd prefer to retain that meaning, which means you have to earn in order for it to mean anything. It's not something you sleepwalk into or start your life as.

However, given that FFG has coopted and exaggerated certain terms, maybe "paragon" has about as much meaning in the game as "triumph". Mechanically, a Triumph is pretty tame -- upgrade a dice pool (hurrah -- faint clapping) -- But the implication of that is that the game context of "dark sider" is also pretty tame.

I also don't have much use for the mechanical benefits of being dark or light. Strain and Wounds is the wrong direction. Paragons lead by example (Leadership, Charm); darksiders corrupt and hate (Deception, Coercion). Some kind of impact on social abilities would be far more interesting to me.