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.

Then make the players work at it. Give them difficult choices. Through ravines and cliffs and other obsticals in the path to becoming paragon. You do not need to change the mechanic to do so,

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.

I like it. Maybe something like this:

19 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion

9 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion, +1 setback to Leadership and Charm

81 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm

91 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm, +1 setback to Deception and Coercion

Then make the players work at it. Give them difficult choices. Through ravines and cliffs and other obsticals in the path to becoming paragon. You do not need to change the mechanic to do so,

I'll probably keep doing it as RAW for now, see if I can find a way to make it work for me.

i think the light and darksides should color peoples perceptions. People interacting with a force user ought to feel that I don't like you vibe and I don't know why.. or the i like you vibe. The dark side also should make those who are dark side see everything in an angry negative light..

i think the light and darksides should color peoples perceptions. People interacting with a force user ought to feel that I don't like you vibe and I don't know why.. or the i like you vibe. The dark side also should make those who are dark side see everything in an angry negative light..

I fully agree with this. That's why I like the boost/setback for social checks idea more than strain/wounds.

One possible idea is to assign Conflict a little more often is if the character acts in a way that lines up with their Emotional Weakness.

If you've got a PC with Fear, and they act in a way that is cowardly, such as doing their darnedest to weasel out of possibly dangerous situation, then assign a couple of points of Conflict to account for them giving into their baser instincts. Similar if you've got a PC with Anger as their Emotional Weakness; any time they lash out in frustration, be it verbally or physically, assign Conflict for them letting their darker emotions rule them.

Another possible notion, drawing from Legends, might be that if the NPC generates Advantage on a social check, especially a Coercion one, against the PC, spend some of that advantage to assign Conflict, possibly at a rate of 3 advantage per point of Conflict to reflect that the NPC is undermining the character's view of themselves or is playing upon their emotional frailties in some way that leaves the character questioning their own point of view.

Perhaps the game thinks that everybody is naturally good, so becoming good is easy if you try, and that's why paragonism(?) is so easy to achieve.

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. The "paragon" title doesn't accurately describe what most people would think it does if you go purely off the mechanics. I'd say they should've used "righteous bro/broess" and "bad dude/dudette" as descriptors.

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, I don't want to bring this conversation back since I feel like the thread has moved on. However, let me just touch quickly on this. At the end of the day, if you don't need a "gimmicky" way to feel like their good actions matter then why are you using a morality system in the first place? If you don't need the system to mechanically represent a character's standing on morality then why not just roleplay it straight and forget the noise? Why are you rolling dice at all?

I mean, only true Star Wars: F&D players would know that this is how you play the game. Me and my leet friends say so.

Then make the players work at it. Give them difficult choices. Through ravines and cliffs and other obsticals in the path to becoming paragon. You do not need to change the mechanic to do so,

Or, if you feel like the current mechanics don't accurately reflect how the characters are progressing morally, make a small change. Why is everyone so insistent on forcing everyone to play the same way?

Well, I don't want to bring this conversation back since I feel like the thread has moved on. However, let me just touch quickly on this. At the end of the day, if you don't need a "gimmicky" way to feel like their good actions matter then why are you using a morality system in the first place? If you don't need the system to mechanically represent a character's standing on morality then why not just roleplay it straight and forget the noise? Why are you rolling dice at all?

I mean, only true Star Wars: F&D players would know that this is how you play the game. Me and my leet friends say so.

I didn't say I didn't need a system to track their morality. I said I don't need a mechanic to make me play good. If I want to be a good character I will just play a good character. I have no need to have my good deeds boosted by rolling a d10 because I was extra good. Ultimately Morality tracks how well a person deals with their internal struggle, making it random instead of predetermined. If you leave it in the hands of players most people won't really explore being bad, which is made evidently clear by peoples worrying that their players are just going to swiftly move to Lightside paragon. Morality as a mechanic represents an internal struggle and does a good job of representing how that internal struggle may be out of the players hands. It's a good way of forcing a player to consider the consequences of his actions. Because each action that gains you Conflict has the potential to make your Morality go up and down the overall goal is to explore what that Conflict means. But if you need to add some kind of gimmick to make sure people just don't end up evil.

Ultimately Morality represents the random nature of dealing with internal conflict and the way in which even the best of intentions can go horribly awry in ways that the character can't predict. Morality neither encourages you to be good or evil. It's a good way to make sure players just don't artificially bee line their way to being "good". But if you need to find some mechanical way to reward being good as opposed to good being an organic growth of the choices your characters make then you're not really being good.

Or, if you feel like the current mechanics don't accurately reflect how the characters are progressing morally, make a small change. Why is everyone so insistent on forcing everyone to play the same way?

Myself and Daelgan are not forcing anyone to do anything. At no point has anyone who disagrees with this mechanic stated that everyone plays the same way. We just assumed that people wanted to discuss it? I don't know ...... I guess we could just agree that this is awesome and just not point out that most of these problems have a tendency to go away when you incorporate different choices that don't require you to make a new mechanic.

If I came to the forums and said I was changing autofire because of X Y and Z and people realized that I wasn't utilizing the autofire rules to their fullest extent to fix the problem I was attempting to correct they would tell me (and rightfully so) that if I only did B I wouldn't need to create X Y and Z. Most of the problems highlighted in this thread go away when you make better utilization of moral conflict. And no, that doesn't mean you turn your game into KotoR. Looking over the GM's guidelines you can see that if you offer up more challenging moral decisions you can have fewer moral conflicts featured while still limiting the fear of the 8 point swing.

At the end of the day I honestly do not care what you do at your table. But if you come to a public forum and ask for input ..... then I'll give it. And I'll defend my position. But you know ..... do whatever you want. I'm not at your table so I honestly do not care in the least.

Perhaps the game thinks that everybody is naturally good, so becoming good is easy if you try, and that's why paragonism(?) is so easy to achieve.

I believe this is actually called out in the book, that the writers are operating under the default assumption that the PCs are generally going to be good guys if not outright heroes, and that while the option for players to be "evil" is there, it's not considered the norm. This was even in EotE, which is about as "shades of grey" as you can get seeing as how it can be boiled down to "Firefly with stormtroopers."

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.

My experience has repeatedly been that making "the morality thing" a central part of the campaign always ends up tying up gaming sessions with what amounts to "moral rules lawyering", with philosophical and ideological tangents, quibbling over moral calculus, and so on.

It's best handled as pure roleplaying and storytelling, and the Force-specific implications handled between the GM and the players its applicable to. If I'm playing a bounty hunter with a code who's working for the Alliance, and this guy I'm working with who happens to have the spooky powers does something reprehensible, I don't give a **** about "the dark side", I care that he just killed a disarmed and helpless foe, or purposefully got innocent bystanders hurt to make his getaway, or whatever.

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.

I like it. Maybe something like this:

19 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion

9 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion, +1 setback to Leadership and Charm

81 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm

91 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm, +1 setback to Deception and Coercion

Assuming my group's force user eventually gets to an applicable morality score, I think I'm going to try this.

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.

I like it. Maybe something like this:

19 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion

9 or less: +1 boost to Deception and Coercion, +1 setback to Leadership and Charm

81 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm

91 or more: +1 boost to Leadership and Charm, +1 setback to Deception and Coercion

I dunno about the Deception penalty on the high end of LS Paragon, mostly as the suggested Conflict chart doesn't say that lying in and of itself is bad, but that it's more situational, and that a falsehood told for noble reasons (such as lying to a pack of stormtroopers that these aren't the innocent civilians they're looking for). Perhaps just make it a setback die to Coercion checks instead when at 91 or more?

On a similar note, both Dooku and Palpatine could be smooth and charming when they needed to be, so just a setback die to Leadership checks instead when at 9 or less?

In that vein, perhaps remove the Deception bonus from 19 or less and the Charm bonus from 81 or more categories? This way, when a PC hits those early extremes of Morality, they're not getting all the "good stuff" right away, and have to go to a greater extreme on the spectrum to get both of the skill boosts.

My guess is that characters like Palpatine or Dooku have talents that allow them to ignore setback dice on social checks anyway.

In that vein, perhaps remove the Deception bonus from 19 or less and the Charm bonus from 81 or more categories? This way, when a PC hits those early extremes of Morality, they're not getting all the "good stuff" right away, and have to go to a greater extreme on the spectrum to get both of the skill boosts.

My assumption was that both 19/9 and 81/91 were accumulative. So, for example, a Morality 5 darksider adds +2 boost dice to Deception and Coercion. That's why the setback to two skills to counterbalance it.

Do you think is it too much?

I think a single boost is plenty.

I agree that a Leadership penalty doesn't apply to characters like Dooku or Palpatine. Maybe "common lore" idea that the dark side has a health impact could be used: I could see a setback on Resilience rolls.

Not sure where a setback would apply for lightsiders. A setback on Coercion feels like a waste, since it's not a skill lightsiders would likely have anyway.

How about Charm and Discipline for Light Side boost, and Coercion and Resilience for Dark Side boost?

I didn't say I didn't need a system to track their morality. I said I don't need a mechanic to make me play good.

So that raises the question as to why you need a system to play good, bad, or ugly. Why do you need a system that only accounts for immoral actions and does not account for anything else?

If I want to be a good character I will just play a good character. I have no need to have my good deeds boosted by rolling a d10 because I was extra good. Ultimately Morality tracks how well a person deals with their internal struggle, making it random instead of predetermined. If you leave it in the hands of players most people won't really explore being bad, which is made evidently clear by peoples worrying that their players are just going to swiftly move to Lightside paragon. Morality as a mechanic represents an internal struggle and does a good job of representing how that internal struggle may be out of the players hands. It's a good way of forcing a player to consider the consequences of his actions.

Okay, now I'm thinking you (or I) misunderstand what was being proposed. You're not rolling an extra d10 for ultimate actions of positive morality. You're just rolling the same D10 you would have rolled if you do enough to warrant it. If you don't do enough moral actions then you might roll a lower die. This does not put more power in the players hands, but rather less power. At BEST they have the same chance of gaining or losing morality that they did before. Also, right now, their dues are paid by not doing immoral actions. The proposed system asks them to do more.

Ultimately Morality represents the random nature of dealing with internal conflict and the way in which even the best of intentions can go horribly awry in ways that the character can't predict. Morality neither encourages you to be good or evil. It's a good way to make sure players just don't artificially bee line their way to being "good". But if you need to find some mechanical way to reward being good as opposed to good being an organic growth of the choices your characters make then you're not really being good.

Right, the complaint is that characters do indeed just bee line to being "good" without having to make special care to award conflict each and every session. I'm not a player. I do not get to play in this game system. I don't gain any benefit so I fail to see this urgent need I have to be rewarded for being good. I also doubt anyone is going to change the way they play because, well gosh, now I get to roll a d10 for my morality instead of a d4 and still possibly lose morality either way if I have 2 or more conflict. Perhaps if they have the weakest grasp on their character's morality to begin with, but at that point you're no better off using the current system or the house rule.

Myself and Daelgan are not forcing anyone to do anything. At no point has anyone who disagrees with this mechanic stated that everyone plays the same way. We just assumed that people wanted to discuss it? I don't know ...... I guess we could just agree that this is awesome and just not point out that most of these problems have a tendency to go away when you incorporate different choices that don't require you to make a new mechanic.

Well, it's awful common to see people say "you're playing the wrong system" and telling people "what the game is about" around here when the morality mechanic is discussed. Considering we're discussing a specific mechanic of a system, I'm fairly certain we know which system we want to play and what it is about. It's odd to tell people they should play something different because they want to play it a bit differently and then say you're not telling everyone that they have to play the same way. The other common thing I've seen lurking this forum is accusations of "lazy" GMing.

We're 3-4 pages in. We all know we don't need a new mechanic to make morality work. However, that doesn't mean we do not see anything that could be improved or altered to better fit our own games.

At the end of the day I honestly do not care what you do at your table. But if you come to a public forum and ask for input ..... then I'll give it. And I'll defend my position. But you know ..... do whatever you want. I'm not at your table so I honestly do not care in the least.

Hey, that's fine. If someone asks for input on a house rule then it's fine to point out issues that may arise with the change, how it may impact the spirit of the game, etc. Telling them that they are playing the wrong system, need to "grow as a GM" (though I'm sure it was meant earnestly), git gud, or other garbage is just elitism unless it's really warranted. Like a major misunderstanding of the rules, qualities that really do fit another system better, or something that goes against the entirety of Star Wars. Then it might be understandable.

Version 1.1:

19 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks

9 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks, +1 Setback to Discipline checks

81 or more:+1 Boost to Charm checks

91 or more: +1 Boost to Charm and Discipline checks

I change it so that it falls more in line with the RAW version.

I don't know...nobody was more disciplined than Palpatine...

Sure, but it was more an excepcion to the rule, I think. Darksiders are usually impatient and impulsive.

The way I have been running it is a positive +1 to their morality modifier at the end of the game for each Triumph (As the Force is with them) they roll during the game.

It really works, as each player is far more willing gain conflict, by acting in the nature of their character (or do something bad for the greater good) as they have a chance of getting it back.

I have been doing this for a weekly game (with two sessions on the same day) for a year now and there is generally much more of a yo yo effect around their scores.

Plus due to some bad rolls and one questionable decision, one player went all the way down to full on dark side with out aiming for it.

The way to the Dark Side is paved with good intentions......

Version 1.1:

19 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks

9 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion and Resilience checks, +1 Setback to Discipline checks

81 or more:+1 Boost to Charm checks

91 or more: +1 Boost to Charm and Discipline checks

I change it so that it falls more in line with the RAW version.

I think wafrog was actually implying a setback to Resilience checks for the dark side. Since they tend to be sickly in some manner.

19 or <: +1 B to Coercion

9 or <: +1B to Coercion & Deception. -1 Resilience

81 or >: +1B to Charm

91 or >: +1B to Charm and Discipline

How's that sound?

Sure, but it was more an excepcion to the rule, I think. Darksiders are usually impatient and impulsive.

True...

I prefer leadership to charm.

19 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion checks

9 or less: +1 Boost to Coercion checks, +1 Setback to Resilience checks.

81 or more:+1 Boost to Leadership checks

91 or more: +1 Boost to Leadership checks, +1 Setback to Deception checks.

Edit: almost ninja'd

The reason I give Darksiders a boost to Resillience and not a setback it's because I imagine the Light Side to give more discipline over the mind, while the Dark Side to have more discipline over the body (which goes in line with that FFG did with Strain/Wounds for LS and DS users).

It don't think the Dark Side makes you sick, I think it makes you look sick while at the same time giving you power and resistance over the pain you use to fuel it (like Kylo Ren hitting his wound).

Sure, but it was more an excepcion to the rule, I think. Darksiders are usually impatient and impulsive.

Depends on the material, and the individual.

Maul was molded through merciless harsh training into a hateful assassin.

Vader was in constant pain and dealing with a bottomless pit of his own rage.

Ventress lead a very unpleasant life and as she outgrew it, she calmed.

Palpatine was a deliberate and scheming individual who enacted a plan spanning decades.

Dooku was refined and precise and even a touch urbane.

It don't think the Dark Side makes you sick, I think it makes you look sick while at the same time giving you power and resistance over the pain you use to fuel it (like Kylo Ren hitting his wound).

The dark siders we see who look sick, look that way for reasons we see on screen. Palpatine looked like a normal older man until he was cooked with his own lighting. Vader had his limbs cut off and his body set on fire by molten lava, then lived in life support armor continuously for decades.

Compare with Dooku and Maul.

I think the entire "the dark side takes a physical toll" thing is another example of "the first Rodian" -- because Vadar and Palpatine look terrible for entirely unrelated reasons, but they were the first and for a long time only dark-siders we saw on screen, certain EU authors and certain fans took their own inference that the dark side makes you look like a terminal case as revealed truth...