I'm still trying to get to grips with morality,

As I see it at the end of a session you roll a d10 and subtract from the value the number of conflicts you have.

from what people have said on other parts of the forums most people get between 2 and 4 conflicts. so I was wondering is d10 to big a dice for this as on average you will be gaining morality.

Any advice and points of view will help me as I will be using this soon and want to get my mind fully around it before I use it.

Thanking you all in advance

Considering cold murrder is worth 10 conflict then no. This scale is supposed to be flexible around characters doing a little bad but not too much.

Also keep in mind it takes a while for players to realise they can play a Darker character and it works.

Lastly if there is no chance to gain conflict during a session then generally that character should not roll at the end of the session.

ahh thank you I didn't realise about the non roll bit I assumed it might be

From a Meta point of view PC's who gain under 5 Conflict every session will on average increase in Morality. Those who gain 5 will stay where they are and those that gain 6 or more will go down in morality. Obviously it's less precise than that but the 3 ranges are roughly:

0-3, 4-6, 7+

On the non roll point that's not to say if a character gains 0 don't roll, but if there is never the chance to gain conflict then don't roll.

As GM it's your job to put situations in front of the PC's where the quick solution gains them conflict while the harder solution doesn't (or just gains less. ie killing 1 in cold blood to save the lives of many)

Initially you should be telling your Players when they are in a situation relevant to their Morality and the consequences. Eventually you should still tell them when they are about to do something that will gain conflict, but they should not need to be told their particular Morality is the focus is a scene.

If a Player decides that the Morality they chose at the beginning no longer fits their character concept then probably allow them to change it, the can then play more freely and enjoy the game more and keep the character choices more in line with the Morality system

that's really good advice thank you very much

No problem. It kinda implied in the GM section, but talking about it can make so much more sense

I generally don't warn my players about conflict, I am however aware that this isn't the way for every group to go. Some players will have serious issues with that, other's not so much. Additionally, I did talk with them about it, so it wasn't that I just started to do it without them knowing.

We had issues with conflict being forgotten, so I had a player make me (well he did volunteer) a small app that I can increase (and decrease) conflict by touch of a button, mostly unseen. So they don't always know, except that the situation may warrant it, but they don't know how much they'll get.

I generally also try to push them in the conflict direction, subtly or obviously. My idea is that players should on average gain about 5 conflict per session, as I see this is what a normal individual would generally get. Of course, sometimes -like last session- some players get more than 10 conflict each (they were on Moraband after all), other times even the one who tries desperately to go dark side ends up gaining just 2 conflict.

As for the chance to gain conflict as Richard covered. This depends a bit on perspective and how lenient you are with conflict to begin with. Some people treat conflict like dark side points in RCR, SE or d6, and dish them out sparingly. In these cases I would agree with him, if conflict is only gained through obvious dark and evil acts, sure, then don't roll all the time, as the chance to gain conflict may not be that common, nor likely. If you as a GM use conflict sparingly, consider holding the roll on 0 conflict, and perhaps (as I did once) save conflict up over two sessions (if it makes sense, like if you had to stop one session in the middle of a mission).

If on the other hand you're like me, who is liberal with dishing out conflict (although it's not always easy - the lack of warning and talking about it makes it somewhat easier, as there needs to be no justification and they won't get the chance to rationalise it and come with counter arguments, for whatever reason... not that those necessarily matter where the Force is concerned), then if someone manages to get through a session with 0 conflict, make the roll regardless. This means they have acted really well and paragon-ish, avoided breaking laws, lying, coercing, stealing, knowingly let crap and **** happen and ignore it (I like that one, it's so easy to dish out a couple of conflict just based on describing the area and see them ignore suffering, knowingly ) and more.

I would recommend having a chat with your group about it though, what they prefer and what you prefer.

I'm still trying to get to grips with morality,

As I see it at the end of a session you roll a d10 and subtract from the value the number of conflicts you have.

from what people have said on other parts of the forums most people get between 2 and 4 conflicts. so I was wondering is d10 to big a dice for this as on average you will be gaining morality.

Any advice and points of view will help me as I will be using this soon and want to get my mind fully around it before I use it.

Thanking you all in advance

It depends on how your character is acting. If your character is being a reasonably good person (not consistently doing things to generate lots of conflict), then yeah, on average, they're going to increase their Morality. Because you know...they're being a good person If they're regularly doing things that generate conflict, either simply by circumstance, or by a choice to play a morally conflicted character, then their score is likely going to fluctuate more, or trend downwards.

But, is that really a surprise? Doing bad/conflicting things ends up making you go bad, and doing good things makes you go good? Seems fairly reasonable outcome if you ask me.

If you are worried about the speed at which they increase (and it can be really fast if they are being Conflict light), then perhaps consider what you are offering conflict for. Perhaps offer situations where it's very difficult to not choose an option that rewards Conflict. "The Lesser of Two Evils" and all that. Or, toss in Fear checks every so often. One of the suggested results for failing a fear check, is getting several points of Conflict. For example, the Fear check when entering the Dark Side Tree on Dagobah, if you fail it, you get 5 Conflict right away, plus an additional Conflict for every additional failure on the check. Depending on how bad they roll, that might guarantee some Morality loss that session, as their spirit is shaken from the brush with pure evil.

Also, one thing to consider: morality (at least from a purely game mechanics standpoint) is a pretty minor thing. Being a Paragon means you get a little bit extra strain and one more Destiny Point.

I see threads all the time about how GMs see their players rocket to Paragon Status and I merely think 'big deal'. The result is not exactly tipping the world on it's ear.

Also, one thing to consider: morality (at least from a purely game mechanics standpoint) is a pretty minor thing. Being a Paragon means you get a little bit extra strain and one more Destiny Point.

I see threads all the time about how GMs see their players rocket to Paragon Status and I merely think 'big deal'. The result is not exactly tipping the world on it's ear.

Speaking as a GM of such a table, for me, it's mostly sort of a realization that the mechanic isn't really....*tries to think of right phrase*...conducive to interesting roleplaying I guess? I mean, when I see the description of Morality and Conflict in the book, it makes me think of really interesting storylines, about having to make tough choices, and characters going down paths because it reflects their Morality, which might lead to bad decisions, and thus interesting stories. But the reality (at least at my table), is the players hardly even think about it, unless I remind them of their characters Moral compass, the Strength/Weakness angle I mean. So it basically just becomes this vestigial mechanic, that doesn't really impact the game much at all, unless goaded to do so.

This might just be reflective of my players, and their phobia about roleplaying, and actually "acting" as their character, trying to think of things from their character's viewpoint. I don't know if others have had similar experiences with it, but that's my take on it so far.

Also, one thing to consider: morality (at least from a purely game mechanics standpoint) is a pretty minor thing. Being a Paragon means you get a little bit extra strain and one more Destiny Point.

I see threads all the time about how GMs see their players rocket to Paragon Status and I merely think 'big deal'. The result is not exactly tipping the world on it's ear.

While I do agree with the sentiment, I think it bears mention that part of the concern may depend on the number of Force users in the group and how many of them are LS Paragons.

As the sole Force user in a friend's AoR game, my PC being a LS Paragon isn't a big deal, since as you said it's a couple extra points of strain and the assurance that the PCs will have at least 1 light side Destiny Point in the pool no matter what we roll, which tends to be around a 50/50 split more often than not, so in that case it's a pretty minor boon overall.

Now I'm running a FaD game with three Force users, only one of whom has become a LS Paragon thus far (mostly as I have the PCs roll at the end of each adventure instead of at the end of each session), but if all three PCs were LS Paragons, that gives the Destiny Pool a bit more of a boost in the PCs favor.

If a GM had a party of 5 or 6 Force users that were all LS Paragons, that's a guaranteed 5 LS Destiny Points in the pool, plus whatever the players roll for, which makes for a pretty beefy destiny pool, one that could start to get unwieldy, especially if the GM isn't flipping DP's as often as they should, something a number of stellar GMs I know are guilty of on more than one occasion (though with Sam Stewart at least, he'll smile gleefully as he spends those dark side DP's to make your PC's life just that little bit harder).

My suspicion is that the rules were written with the notion that probably no more than a couple of PCs in your average (4 to 5 players) group would be LS Paragons, thus only providing 2 extra Destiny Points to the pool, and that getting your Morality score into the 90's would be more of an uphill climb.

If you have a dark sider in the group, the number of extra destiny points may not be in the players' favour, I have one of each currently, so that's nice. Basically I add a dark side point.

Going for the per adventure route is a good option, I prefer being liberal with conflict, but I can definitely see the per adventure conflict roll working a lot better for a lot of groups, and games where these struggles take more centre stage and are supposed to be more long term, slightly slower and with more impact once it happens. The current system could potentially add a lot more quick variation, I guess.

My group has three out of six characters as light side paragons, with a fourth that'll probably be heading that way soon. It's really not a big deal, mechanically.

The Destiny pool is perhaps a bit bigger, but the odds slightly favor the dice rolling on Dark Side pips at the start of a session. We tend to have only one or two players roll Light Side and the rest all roll Dark.

It just encourages our GM to raise the stakes a bit by burning the Dark pips while we tend to mostly spend Light pips on activating Force powers.

I think the hardest part of Morality for a GM is taking the players choice and translating it into a tool for encounter design. Obligation and Duty provide very obvious and easy to use ideas to incorporate into encounters, drawing in those characters in the process. But for Morality a GM's interpretation of how that plays out could be very different to the Players, so it the GM thinks they have crafted a fantastic scene that really challenges a character and then the Player just walks straight past it!

That's the challenge for GM's, and personally I prefer to run Edge/Age games with FaD characters entwined for that reason. I so far have failed as GM to come up with truely satisfying ways to include Morality in stories.

Back to the "don't roll Morality if no opportunity was given to gain conflict" I don't think that happens very often, usually a single force check in a session is enough for a PC to have to decide whether to use a DS pip or not. That suggestion is more for if a Player is absent, or a PC spends the entire session in a Bacta tank etc.

That's the challenge for GM's, and personally I prefer to run Edge/Age games with FaD characters entwined for that reason. I so far have failed as GM to come up with truely satisfying ways to include Morality in stories.

Of the three. I think that Morality is the weakest. Mind you, we've not actually used the Duty (yet - we're still getting set up), but those are nice solid and concrete forms of "I want this to happen to my character". Morality is way too easy to get wrong or overlook or otherwise drift along.

That's the challenge for GM's, and personally I prefer to run Edge/Age games with FaD characters entwined for that reason. I so far have failed as GM to come up with truely satisfying ways to include Morality in stories.

Of the three. I think that Morality is the weakest. Mind you, we've not actually used the Duty (yet - we're still getting set up), but those are nice solid and concrete forms of "I want this to happen to my character". Morality is way too easy to get wrong or overlook or otherwise drift along.

I think to really benefit from the Morality system, you have to have a lot of buyin from your player, to have them honestly consider their Morality, and how it would impact their character's actions, and consider that in an ongoing manner across the campaign. Which is easy for some players, but not for others. If you have players who are more munchkiny in their mindset (maybe not on purpose, but just analytical and used to it from decades of D20), it's hard to think in the abstract, emotional idea of the character.

I've noticed this with many of the people I play with. It's an odd sort of ironic disconnect with their character. They are disconnected from their character, but they are also unable to disconnect what they want to have happen with what the character would want to have happen. Basically a meta concept problem.

"If I do this, it will make my character look like a jerk, and possibly get him in trouble." instead of thinking of it like "Well, my character is something of a jerk when there are credits on the line, so he would likely screw over these people for the extra cash, even if it means he has to be chased out of town." Some people have problems with that, I know my guys do.