I also don't like the D&D 9 points of morality. I didn't like the Palladium version of Scrupulous/Principled/etc either.

That said, I don't think that Morality is necessarily a callback to this.

At my table, I've talked to my players about their Morality relating to their Emotional Weakness/Strength. As they improve their morality, the role-playing aspect is to behave in line with their emotional strength more often than their weakness. As their morality declines, the role-playing affect is to go with their weakness more often. They use it like a percentage system almost - when you really are in doubt about what your character would do, roll percentile; get under your morality, go with your strength's approach, get over - give in to your weakness. That sounds arbitrary, but it's not a roll in every case - just a guide to help the PC's work out their characters motivation in a scene when it isn't coming naturally.

That's basically the only role that Morality has in my games - as a role-playing tool that specifically speaks to their emotional tendencies.

>And by those guidelines in the situation presented, no Conflict would be awarded unless the GM wanted to be an friggin prick and screw that player over.

1) That seems overly harsh. There's wriggle-room, I think. Opinions come into play here. Silent Rip above gives a well-reasoned argument as to why a few conflict points would be possible.

2) What if Han Solo was a Force-sensitive. Killing Greedo is justified, but is it Conflict-worthy?

3) Kenobi wasn't being malicious or evil at any point in the films, and is often held up as example of how a proper Jedi should act, even spawning a "What Would Kenobi Do?" meme in terms of how a player should play an actual Jedi Knight as opposed to a quasi-psychic thug with a glow sword.

As I mention, this kind of thinking becomes a meme, so movie characters tend to be a given a free pass. 'If he did it, it's got to be good'.

I don't agree, but I think the whole thing is purely opinion, and that was what I was trying to debate here, see what other people think without it becoming a 'one true way'.

I don't get involved in some threads, because I'm only likely to disagree with them, and I'm not about to tell someone else is wrong when my own opinion differs.

All that said, I think it's best I leave it there.

1) I'd agree. Dishing out some conflict isn't necessarily "prick"-worthy. I have a rule of thumb that most players should acquire 1-3 conflicts per session, at the very least. With some that's easier than with others, but just because they're good at justifying actions and come across as goodie-two-shoes, doesn't mean what they did (or didn't) do, isn't conflict-worthy. Of course, my players are involved with criminals, so just working with them can easily incur conflict, even if their intentions are good. I've toyed with the idea of a relationship between obligation and morality: when obligation is triggered, they gain 1 conflict (not as a hard rule, it is always dependant upon: Context, Context, CONTEXT.) As long as the "average" players/character accumulates about 5 conflict per session, I can see that as a normal person, less, then you're a better person, more, then you're worse person (regardless of intention and justification). I try to make this an average of my group adjusted by how I try to think the light/dark side thing works in my Star Wars Galaxy. If it's too easy to go paragon, then something's wrong - not with the system, but with how I'm not utilising it in the correct way. Of course I could do away with it, but I find it easier to adapt to something that exists, than to try to reinvent the wheel, when all I want to do is play.

2) I'd say so, potentially. He could've used the stun setting (if he had one on his heavy blaster)... It is murder and even if the situation was threatening (and arguably self-defence), I'd call it pre-emptive overreaction. But I wouldn't give it 10 conflict, but easily 2-4. It depends also on how it was roleplayed - not necessarily justified. Acting out of fear, that would perhaps make me less inclined to give 4, but if it was with "glee" and purposeful determination... easily 4. Or 5... or more... again though: context context context... who was actually in control of the situation, who was actually at a disadvantage?

3) Not being malicious or "evil" doesn't mean you won't get conflict... does it? Obi-wan was possibly a paragon of the light side, at least at some point (or a few times) in his career, but he did enough of arguably questionable stuff to warrant him conflict here and there ... his whole attitude in Ep I when referring to Jar Jar and "pathetic" life forms can give us some insight into Jedi (and Kenobi's) attitudes to life and sentients, even among the good ones. Which Yoda alludes to in Episode 3 at the very least - and

- when he refers to arrogance among the Jedi.

Basically, I don't think very many of the Jedi during TCW or the prequel era was paragons - I think they thought they were paragons, but most weren't. Kenobi at some point or another, sure, Anakin? Maybe at some point, but I see him mostly rolling between 35-65, with some peaks. Tano, perhaps. At some point. Perhaps in Rebels... not certain. Yoda? when on Dagobah, sure, TCW? Nope... up to and including Ep 1? Perhaps... at times... but at that time even he came across as pretty arrogant. Jinn? Well, depends. Towards the end maybe...

To clarify, when I said "prick worthy" that was in reference solely to the scenarios presented in regards to Kenobi in ANH, as we see them. Handing out conflict for the "Vader betrayed and murdered your father" lie is being a prick. Was it a nice thing to do, lying to Luke like that? Not really, but it certainly wasn't Conflict worthy either.

With regards to Han Solo, yes he would generate Conflict, especially if you stick with the original/true version of the scene where Han shot first. Greedo had presented a notable threat, and made it very clear he was perfectly willing to kill Han on the spot. Though as several friends of mine and I have joked in regards to the Special Edition versions of that scene, if Greedo missed after spending all that time drawing a bead on Han, then he freaking deserved to have his guts vaporized. Han wouldn't get the full 10+ Conflict for outright murder at my table, but probably something closer to 6 for excessive violence since Greedo wasn't some random goober off the street, and while threatening violence hadn't yet pulled the trigger. Which yes, that means that if a Force user wants to avoid earning large amounts of Conflict in the first place they're going to have to wait and let the other guy make the first move. And as should be obvious, Han Solo's no Jedi.

With Kenobi vs. the cantina thugs, you actually can hear their blasters being fired before Kenobi dispatches them. They drew on him before he even reached for his lightsaber, so at most I could see 1 point of Conflict... if he hadn't already tried (and failed) to talk them down beforehand. Had he gone straight to the lightsaber before trying to talk them down, then yes that would be worth Conflict, since he used violence as the first resort, and probably a hefty amount since he used lethal force against two schlubs that at that point hadn't drawn their weapons. But Kenobi did try to talk them down, even going so far as to offer buying them a drink to calm the mood, and waited until after those guys had drawn blasters before he went for the laser sword. It seems most players would probably have skipped right to the laser sword without the "try to talk them down bit" and as such would generate Conflict since they skipped over the "try to resolve peacefully" portion of trying to defuse a hostile situation.

Jegergryte,

While I can understand the "most PCs should generate some Conflict per session," I don't think the GM should necessarily go hunting for ways to ensure that a PC generates at least some Conflict. It might be rare as hen's teeth in some gaming circles, but there are players that willing choose to take courses of action that won't net them Conflict, or behave in a way that Conflict doesn't come up.

And while I've agreed in the past with the sentiment that it's up to the GM to place the PCs in situations where they have an opportunity to generate Conflict, that doesn't mean that the GM has to set up a paladin screw job and plan their adventures in such a way as to deliberately place their PCs in situations where they're going to gain Conflict no matter what they do. I understand that those "damned if you, damned if you don't" situations can crop up simply as a result of the narrative dice and how things play out, but if the GM is intentionally placing those sorts of scenarios in the game to occur no matter what course of action the PCs take, then that veers too close to the GM being a prick for my liking.

I mentioned "critical hits" in my previous post, and it got me thinking about an altered mechanic. If Morality was more like Wounds and Critical hits, it might allow for easier tracking of the actions that drive moral change. The Morality score could be used to track small actions either way...things that aren't too egregious or beneficial that, for the sake of avoiding micro-management, can be viewed as canceling each other out. However, if you cross the threshold (because even constant small negative acts can add up), just like for crossing the Wound threshold, you take a Moral Crit. You also take a Moral Crit if you do something terrible, something worth 10 or more Conflict in the current mechanic...using terror, torture, or murder to achieve your ends.

A Moral Crit would be a big deal. It's not something you can easily expunge and weighs heavily. Each one you have might impose some mechanical penalty, such as setbacks on certain skill checks, or causing extra Strain to use dark pips (at least until you "give in to the dark side"). But the main thing is it informs the story/narrative as to whether and/or when the character might be able to redeem themselves or resolve it (or not).

The Moral Crits could be ranked and rated (like normal crits), with some guidelines as to what is needed to remove them. But given the way most SW tales go, coming clean requires great personal sacrifice, including putting your life on the line.

I'm not sure there needs to be a benefit for being a paragon. In fact, striving to be a paragon because you get a mechanical bonus seems counter to the whole point. The act of wanting the bonus is a selfish thought that pushes a paragon status further away

To be honest, one of the things I loved about F&D was that 'dark side' doesn't make you a baby-eating puppy-murderer. The twinned morality, the fine lines between something like 'Enthusiasm' and 'Recklessness'. That was what we wanted to explore, but - surprisingly - the F&D rules just didn't do it very well for us, only rewarding a straight rush to one extreme. So we just tossed that aside.

I'm just curious (sorry, I can't recall), other than the Strengths and Weaknesses do you use the Morality mechanic at all? Because it seems to me you wouldn't need it.

On #3 in JegerGryte's post.

No, being rude or dismissive in and of itself isn't Conflict worthy, otherwise Kenobi would have likely been a dark sider from all the snarkiness he tossed about to pretty much everybody he interacted with by the time RotS had wrapped up. He was dismissive of Jar Jar because for much of that film, said Gungan hadn't really done anything to warrant a better opinion, and in fact upon first meeting had demonstrated to not be all that smart. Even Qui-Gon was quick to make a rude remark about Jar Jar's intelligence within moments of meeting the Gungan. Obi-Wan even snarks about "picking up another pathetic lifeform" giving suggestion that Qui-Gon taking in strays like Jar Jar and Anakin is a recurring trait.

As he gets older and wiser, Obi-Wan's snarkiness loses some of its edge, and becomes generally good-natured, especially with Anakin (who frankly needs to have his ego deflated more often than not) during much of The Clone Wars series.

I think a GM that assigns their PCs points of Conflict just for making off-handed witty/snarky remarks is simply looking for an excuse to hand an otherwise light-aligned character Conflict points "just because."

Witty remarks? Star Wars? Isn't that about 30% of the dialogue? In all Star Wars media?

Dono,

Your first comment to me: my rule of thumb isn't always that easy to follow (it's not always that easy to dish out conflict all the time, not as easy as I'd like anyway) Still, I think the bar should be set pretty low. While some players may (arguably) game the system (and the game... ) to avoid conflict, I'm not a big fan of that (although I guess there's nothing wrong with it, unless it breaks suspension of disbelief and that ongoing narrative). At the same time I'm very keen on them playing the type of character they want to play. I think players and their characters should be aware of what they're doing without hand-holding and a booming voice from above shouting "That course of action leads to Conflict, young one." Players and characters should be aware of this. Characters should follow their own morality, but that doesn't mean they know when and why they get conflict.

The core of the game is for everyone to have fun, so people utilise the mechanic differently, and some players are more sensitive and uncomfortable when confronted with themselves and their values, even in games, than others. This, among other things, has lead me to note conflict without them knowing. It's part of the deal. Part of the fun. I'm well aware that others would find this detestable and being a ****-GM (not that you're accusing me of that as I understand it ), but I find that it lets us play more and discuss less (if playing differs that significantly from discussing ...)

About your second post, and my 3rd point. We obviously interpret this scene differently. I see an inherent corruption and stagnation in the Jedi order which none of the Jedi we've met in canon so far has been untouched by. I do not believe it was merely a "snarky remark," I see it as a significant tell of the hypocrisy that is festering in the Jedi order at that time (as commented by Yoda on two occasions as I see it.) So the remarks in themselves are merely snarky and witty, but underlying arrogance is still there. So yeah, a witty remark isn't conflict-worthy (but that's not what I wrote either), but that witty remark can be seen as a symptom of the festering ulcer within the Jedi Order, the cancerous faecal matter of moral duplicity and hypocrisy that was arguably as important to the Order's fall as the Sith was. This is a bit unrelated to the lie to Luke though.

The point being, he did lie to Luke. We can only speculate about why, but I'm pretty sure that a part of it was shame, the danger to lose face, to lose his position and influence over Luke. Self-interest (as well as a larger picture, but one does not necessarily cancel the other.) I'm not sure I'd award conflict, but I see reasoning for giving 1. I guess it depends on whether or not one accepts Kenobi as being a human, therein having flaws, issues and so on. That he can fail, can do wrong. Which I believe he can and more importantly did - leaving his friend, padawan and brother in flames, by a river of lava ... I'd give him some conflict for that too. That's unnecessary cruelty, and at that time Anakin was more or less helpless... so this is a kind of damned either way moment. I'd probably award 3-5 conflict for that (and more if the player insisted of course), but of course you could argue that if he had killed Anakin, it'd be execution, and as such murder ... so ... then we could talk about 8+ conflict. He has already pacified him, neutralised him as a physical threat. Killing him is murder, leaving him to die by fire is torture (and murder)... of course, what's the third option? Heal him? Abduct him? I don't know. There should usually and most often be a non-conflict option I agree, but sometimes it goes all Catch 22 on you. Sometimes you paint yourself into a corner, which will have consequences.

I'm just curious (sorry, I can't recall), other than the Strengths and Weaknesses do you use the Morality mechanic at all? Because it seems to me you wouldn't need it.

I don't use numbers for it at all, no. If I ever did, I'd do away with Conflict and just use Morality on a sliding scale. We play the Force as yin/yang where all characters with Force careers can be Light or Dark at any time, depending on their recent actions. They reset to their default between games. We call it 'Morality' and 'Passions' rather than strengths and weakness, as we don't see dark-side as a weakness or 'evil', necessarily. It's a bit like 'stance'; in WHFRP3, or Paragon/Renegade in Mass Effect. Very little book-keeping and allows full exploration of both extremes without penalising the player for doing so. There are small bonuses for being in either 'stance' that reflects the character's current personality.

We don't track Duty or Obligation either. I give a small bonus for an appropriate duty in that session, and use Obligation purely as character background and plot fodder.

In general, I play using a rules-lite version of the game anyway, simplifying things like vehicle combat. It's heavy on story and character and I like to keep combat fast-moving and 'pulpy'.

We obviously interpret this scene differently. I see an inherent corruption and stagnation in the Jedi order which none of the Jedi we've met in canon so far has been untouched by. I do not believe it was merely a "snarky remark," I see it as a significant tell of the hypocrisy that is festering in the Jedi order at that time (as commented by Yoda on two occasions as I see it.) So the remarks in themselves are merely snarky and witty, but underlying arrogance is still there. So yeah, a witty remark isn't conflict-worthy (but that's not what I wrote either), but that witty remark can be seen as a symptom of the festering ulcer within the Jedi Order, the cancerous faecal matter of moral duplicity and hypocrisy that was arguably as important to the Order's fall as the Sith was.

Funnily enough, this is pretty much precisely what happened in our campaign, when Palpatine was killed before Order 66. One of the players suggested that the canon probably helped the Jedi Order as a whole, in the long term, allowing it to be basically rebuilt from scratch as something purer to its original goals. It was fun to try to imagine what would have happened to it if Order 66 didn't happen.

Han shooting first isn't really Conflict worthy. Greedo makes it clear he intends to do harm to Han. Han shooting first is just Han's player winning initiative. Unless we're saying going first in the initiative order is a Conflict worthy event then Han should generate no Conflict from a villain that was obviously intending to do harm to the player character.

Jegergryte,

The Jedi Order as a whole might have stagnated by the time of the Clone Wars, but that doesn't mean that there weren't members like Kenobi and Yoda who still held to the original principles that the Jedi Order was meant to embody. I think you're trying to paint every single Jedi of that time frame with too broad a brush.

Now I'm not saying that Obi-Wan or Yoda were sitting in the high 90's on the Morality scale; Yoda might be hanging out in the low 90's at best, but probably is somewhere in the mid 80's, where Kenobi is likely hanging out in the mid 70's by the time he faced Anakin in Mustafar, and may well have dipped below 70 after his fight with Anakin, since by the Conflict rules he'd get Conflict whether he left Anakin to burn or deliberately finished his old pupil and friend off. As the RotS novelization cites, it would have been merciful of Obi-Wan to kill Anakin right then and there, but he wasn't exactly feeling merciful after what Anakin had set in motion by allying himself with the Sith.

Of course, some Jedi adhered to original principles better than others. I'm not denying that.

I could imagine Yoda's little excursion as what brought him (back) to paragon status (perhaps as high as around 80ish) by use of non-RAW rules

Kenobi may have been paragon before Mustafar (I am however not certain of that), but not after no.

Here's the entire scene. in it we can clearly see that the bad guys draw on Obi Wan first, after he attempted to resolve it peacefully. We also see that Greedo makes a direct threat on Han's life, indicating that there may be no way out but to fight. In both cases I don't think Conflict is worthy since in both cases the PC characters attempted to solve things without violence and they were left with no other choice but to kill or be killed.

I'm likely one of the more stricter posters in terms of Morality and what constitutes good and evil and Conflict worthy events ..... but as a GM if I tell my players "the thug shoves your character violent into a table and draws his pistol" then I'm not going to award them any Conflict for whipping out a lightsabre and ending the encounter. Like wise if I as the GM have an NPC make a direct threat on the life of PC I'm not going to give him Conflict for not trying to find some peaceful way to talk himself out of that situation.

Good point Kael about Han vs. Greedo. Han did try to talk his way out of that situation, but had his usual luck in doing so, having to resort to using his blaster.

Then again, not moments after he sat down, Han started to draw his blaster via sleight-of-hand, indicating that he fully intended to blast Greedo. Plus, at least in the original version (which is the one I prefer), Greedo had implied a threat, but there was still a chance that he wouldn't have carried through on it; we don't know the particulars of the bounty at that time, especially if one considers that Han and Jabba had a pretty chummy conversation not that long after; it could very well be that Jabba wanted Han brought in alive so that he could make good on what he owed the Hutt, and that Greedo got overzealous. If one goes by the Special Edition edits of the scene where either Greedo shoots first or they shoot darn near simultaneously, then I would agree that Han wouldn't earn Conflict in that case.

Well I don't award Conflict for preparing for a fight. But Han did try to talk his way out and as the scene continues it becomes clearer and clearer that there is no talking his way out. Maybe the player failed his rolls to convince the NPC or the GM wasn't having any of it. But when the NPC makes it clear that he would prefer to take your character in dead as opposed to alive .... can't blame a PC for shooting.

Now had Han sat down and just fired, yeah I'd agree he deserves Conflict. But the character makes attempts to talk his way out while also preparing for a fight. Considering that the conversation was had at gun point I'm not going to fault a PC for wanting to put his hand on his weapon and get ready to draw it if that conversation goes south. If Greedo wasn't pointing a gun at Han the entire time I might feel differently, but the gun on him raises the threat level a bit and I can understand a PC wanting to be ready to fight.

If I were playing the scene out Greedo makes his threat on Han's life, I call for initiatives .... Han wins, goes first and kills.

Here's the entire scene. in it we can clearly see that the bad guys draw on Obi Wan first, after he attempted to resolve it peacefully. We also see that Greedo makes a direct threat on Han's life, indicating that there may be no way out but to fight. In both cases I don't think Conflict is worthy since in both cases the PC characters attempted to solve things without violence and they were left with no other choice but to kill or be killed.

I'm likely one of the more stricter posters in terms of Morality and what constitutes good and evil and Conflict worthy events ..... but as a GM if I tell my players "the thug shoves your character violent into a table and draws his pistol" then I'm not going to award them any Conflict for whipping out a lightsabre and ending the encounter. Like wise if I as the GM have an NPC make a direct threat on the life of PC I'm not going to give him Conflict for not trying to find some peaceful way to talk himself out of that situation.

First thing, Han isn't really worried about being a Paragon, he's worried about surviving and paying off his debt. If we're doing this with game mechanics in mind, he shouldn't even be bothering with morality at all. I mean, he's clearly not bothered by it, he lives in a Scoundrel's world. Kill or be killed. Lying, cheating, stealing, all of these things are perfectly acceptable, if you can get away with it. He's not trying to uphold any ideal, or morality. In game terms, this would be an Edge or Age character, who is only running with Obligation or Duty. He has no mystical power that he can tap into, that could color his emotions, urging him down a dark path. He's just got a price on his head, and every bounty hunter in the galaxy looking for him.

Just looking at the Conflict chart a minute ago, what he does, I wouldn't really classify as "unwarranted violence". I mean, the threat to his life is pretty immediate and apparent. He does try and talk his way out of it, he just fails, because Han is terrible at talking. Assuming I'm the GM, and I have decided that he absolutely MUST have conflict for this (again, assuming he's playing a specialization that warrants having Morality at all), I'd give him maybe 1-2 at most for that. Yeah, maybe you could say "well you could've tried to flip the table and ran, avoiding hostility at all costs" but with a gun pointed at you, basically flat footed? And seated at a table? Hardly the best time to try and not be shot. If this was Han's first time to ever kill someone outside of the "heat of battle", I'd probably give him some conflict for it, just to reflect the "you have now taken another sentient life voluntarily". But after decades of smuggling? Nah, this isn't anything new for him.

Well the entire Han thing assumes he's a Force and Destiny character. I'm not so much addressing it because I think he is such a character but because it was asked whether or not the situation should have drawn Conflict. Assuming Han is a Force and Destiny character playing with Morality based on that scene though my answer is no.

But it all assumes that he's a Force and Destiny character. If he's Edge (which he is) then it's immaterial what he does in that regard. I was assuming the question was more academic in nature, seeking to see where people drew the line and what constitutes a Conflict worthy act.

First off, let me state that I would wholesale throw out morality meters in nearly every video game/pen and paper RPG that they are introduced into for one reason; they always have a mechanical effect. And if you are a power gamer of any stripe or degree you will notice that to get the mechanical benefit you are after, you will have to play a certain way. Not a fan.

However, I think that it is worth mentioning that in this system, the mechanical benefits seem relatively balanced when one takes into account both their ease of acquisition (also, departure), and their relatively minor benefits. Indeed, I believe this Easy Come, Easy Go idea means that, during one story arc, a PC will be seen as righteous within one narrative framework, and, even in the very next one, might be at odds with the role of "Good Guy" proper.

So even though both fans and detractors seem to think that the binary morality system lacks nuance, it just doesn't sit with me. I think if we stop thinking Light=Good, Dark=Bad, then a virtual god**** cornucopia of possibilities appear.

Suppose that, as multiple people have postulated before me, what the individuals that inhabit the universe of Star Wars call the Dark Side is just self-interest and the Light Side is the interests of the herd? Even the idea that community is of paramount importance can be taken to extremes and result in loss of freedoms or even lives of individuals. And conversely, self interest at it worst will harm those around when their desires do not coincide with yours.

And even if that isn't StarWarsey enough for you (it isn't for me), there is always the option to simply change how you dole out conflict. It has been suggested that dropping conflict on characters for not adhering to their emotional strengths and weaknesses is a good substitute for the simple Light/Dark approach.

The short of it is that, as with dual-wielding, one doesn't really need to reinvent the wheel just because the tread has worn off of the tires. At least if we simply adjust how we perceive a few arbitrary choices in diction.

Well the entire Han thing assumes he's a Force and Destiny character. I'm not so much addressing it because I think he is such a character but because it was asked whether or not the situation should have drawn Conflict. Assuming Han is a Force and Destiny character playing with Morality based on that scene though my answer is no.

But it all assumes that he's a Force and Destiny character. If he's Edge (which he is) then it's immaterial what he does in that regard. I was assuming the question was more academic in nature, seeking to see where people drew the line and what constitutes a Conflict worthy act.

Ah, sorry I skimmed most of that exchange, and just saw the link in the discussion. Yeah, if it played out like that in game, I'd probably not award conflict, or 1-2 at most. He did try and resolve the issue without violence, but prepared for it in case words failed him. That about sums up every player I've ever had at the table ever. "Sure I'll go to the peace talks in good faith, but I'm wearing my full combat armor and bringing all my weapons! Because I'm paranoid that way!" Also, the whole "popping the catch on the holster" thing, it's very possible that Greedo has a long reputation of being a killer, inclining to bring his bounties in dead, rather than alive. We don't know, but he certainly is portrayed as an evil little guy, who enjoys killing. The EU of course depicts the Rodian's as a very violent species, but I don't know if that was actually in place with Ep. 4. It felt like most westerns, where the hero is getting ready for where he knows this situation is most likely going to end up. Someone getting shot. He plans on not being the one shot. If he can convince Greedo to walk away, great, but that didn't work because, well, he's Han.

Whafrog, I like your idea. It has nice potential.

The group I'm in use a system that better reflects the order two characters adhere to. That is the Je'daii Order that predates the Jedi Order of the PT, OT, and ST. Characters still get Dark Side points for doing clearly evil actions regardless of intent or if they are unable to maintain the balance between using the light and dark side of the Force. The award of Dark Side points is there to make sure that you role play appropriately and a player should show that conflict when they are close to the centerline of the Force.

I'll never understand why meta gaming is portrayed as somehow being a fault of the system itself as opposed to the players that do it and the GM's that allow it.

Probably because those GMs are looking for an excuse rather than trying to actually address and correct the problem.

Granted, there's going to be some degree of meta-gaming in any RPG, but it's just a matter of setting what is an acceptable level for the group (which is going to vary from one group to the next) and sticking to it. Some groups are fine with crazy amounts of metagaming, others prefer to stay "in the moment" and keep metagaming to an absolute minimum.

A system that penalizes roleplaying encourages metagaming.

I'll never understand why meta gaming is portrayed as somehow being a fault of the system itself as opposed to the players that do it and the GM's that allow it.

Probably because those GMs are looking for an excuse rather than trying to actually address and correct the problem.

Granted, there's going to be some degree of meta-gaming in any RPG, but it's just a matter of setting what is an acceptable level for the group (which is going to vary from one group to the next) and sticking to it. Some groups are fine with crazy amounts of metagaming, others prefer to stay "in the moment" and keep metagaming to an absolute minimum.

A system that penalizes roleplaying encourages metagaming.

The system doesn't penalize role playing. It just doesn't always 100% give you the result you want.

A failed Morality check is an opportunity for character growth just like any failed check. Unless your idea of role playing is wrapped up in the number of success you get there is nothing that this mechanic does that limits your role play potential.

If you're fine with the whole singular axis thing, what my group has ruled is that if you roll less than accumulated conflict of the session, then you lose morality equal to accrued conflict.

I'll never understand why meta gaming is portrayed as somehow being a fault of the system itself as opposed to the players that do it and the GM's that allow it.

Probably because those GMs are looking for an excuse rather than trying to actually address and correct the problem.

Granted, there's going to be some degree of meta-gaming in any RPG, but it's just a matter of setting what is an acceptable level for the group (which is going to vary from one group to the next) and sticking to it. Some groups are fine with crazy amounts of metagaming, others prefer to stay "in the moment" and keep metagaming to an absolute minimum.

A system that penalizes roleplaying encourages metagaming.

The system doesn't penalize role playing. It just doesn't always 100% give you the result you want.

A failed Morality check is an opportunity for character growth just like any failed check. Unless your idea of role playing is wrapped up in the number of success you get there is nothing that this mechanic does that limits your role play potential.

I run for two groups. Both this system. One is full of role playing and laughs and we're telling a great story. The other gets combative with me, secretive, and metagames like they're getting paid for it.

I don't care, per se, if someone metagames if the rest of the table is cool with it. But I won't encourage it. Take away the carrot and let us see where the horse goes, shall we? So I took away the morality and replaced it with my non-mechanical colors idea.

There are a lot of times I blame the GM for things gone wrong, but power gamers are gonna power game.