Hey all,

So, I think I'm doing Morality and Conflict wrong, and I thought I'd ask the Forums for advice. Sorry, this one's going to be a little long...

We're an experienced group at this point, I've been GMing an AoR game that's run for nearly two years, so we know the system reasonably well. One thing we hadn't really touched on in that time is the Force, at least as a PC resource, and I've finally decided to give things a try. I've also been listening to a lot of the Campaign Podcast, and I was inspired to run a mixed EotE/FaD game - the PCs can galavant around the galaxy exploring the mysteries of the force as much as they want, but they'll need to take on jobs to pay for gas and groceries... :-)

The group (there's 6 of them) created characters using RAW, selecting from the FaD Core careers/specializations. Here's a quick list:
- Zabrak Consular/Sage - Mercy/Apathy
- Human Warrior/Aggressor - Justice/Cruelty
- Twilek Sentinel/Shadow - Curiosity/Obsession
- Twilek Consular/Niman Disciple - Enthusiasm/Recklessness
- Chadra-Fan Guardian/Protector - Compassion/Fear
- Nautolan Guardian/Protector - Compassion/Hatred

They all started with a Morality of 50, with the exception of the Nautolan, who went with a starting value of 71. He was also the only one who selected a Jedi background, playing a Padawan - the rest have force-sensitive but untrained backgrounds. The game began about 30 minutes before Order 66 was carried out, targetting the Nautolan's Master and the Nautolan, the rest of the party getting caught in the crossfire

So, Morality/Conflict is a new mechanism for all of us, and I dutifully read through the rules in the FaD Core Book. I decided to use the optional Morality trigger rules, but didn't roll anything for the first session, figuring I'd at least see how the characters bed in before deciding on how to test them. I discussed with them playing to either their strength or weakness and the mechanical benefits of doing so; I also ran through potential conflict sources.

And I think that's where my problems started. The players, not usually a group of murder-hobos but still pretty quick on the trigger in the AoR game, immediately showed signs of utter pacifism, to the point of now looking to get their hands on the "best" non-lethal weapons they can (an amusing turn around for the power gamer of the group, who rolls literal handfuls of dice for his jury-rigged autofire Heavy Blaster Rifle in the AoR game, mowing down minions and rivals alike). The Chadra-Fan player was distraught when she realised the duelling pistols she'd bought had no stun setting, forcing her to kill a clone trooper instead of stunning him.

The next problem was that I wasn't giving them enough opportunity to earn conflict, and they certainly weren't risking earning any themselves - the Niman Disciple earned 1 for using a dark side pip with Influence, and I gave the Chadra-Fan 5 for the Clone Trooper - another mistake, I think, as she didn't start that particular fight. The rest of them studiously avoided anything that might have earned them conflict.

We discussed conflict and rolled Morality at the end of the session, as suggested, and discussed strengths/weaknesses. Three of the six argued - or at least suggested - that they had triggered their Moralities:
- Niman Disciple called up two different groups of Bounty Hunters who were after party members and had them converge on their position to engage and distract the Republic Troopers who were coming to inspect the shuttle they had comandeered - "Recklessness"
- Chadra-Fan cowered during a firefight before acting - "Fear"
- Nautolan protected other group members - "Compassion" <- In retrospect, this one was definitely a mistake, I shouldn't have agreed to it

Net result, significant jump for morality for everyone. So, where am I going wrong? I think firstly I need more defined challenges paired to the selected moralities of each character (and hope they don't split the party and send the wrong people after the wrong task). Secondly, as RichardBuxton pointed out in https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/217290-morality-increasing/ recently, if people aren't getting the opportunity to earn conflict, then they shouldn't be rolling. I also think I need to mandate more rigid rules for the triggering - if the Chadra-Fan just cowers before each fight, should I allow her to trigger every time? My gut feeling says no, but technically I think that would be permitted by the rules...

Any thoughts, advice, questions would be most welcome.

First everything a character does should be able to give conflict, it doesn't have to be tied directly to their Morality strength/weakness. The Strength/Weakness is more for when you want to make a pivotal moment for that character, a big decision that ties more closely to their concept. So use the Strength/Weakness when planing a session and one of your characters Moralities has triggered (On the triggering rules; make your roll to Trigger PC Morality at the end of sessions, not the beginning, it makes planing next session much easier!)

Second killing doesn't mean instant conflict, so like you said that 5 you handed out was probably unjustified. Context is important, and like i said elsewhere in the beginning its probably best if you play a little slower and discuss these things during the session a little.

The whole point of Morality is to give the Players something to pivot their character around, to assist them in making the decisions they make, but not at the expense of story and fun.

The most important thing is consistency, keep it consistent from PC to PC and session to session.

This thread could devolve into a lengthy discussion on what is Morally wrong in Star Wars Universe compared to Real World, its kind of irrelevant since every single group has a different interpretation and therein lies your solution. Spend the first couple of sessions nutting it out, finding the sweet spot for your group, discuss it afterwards, have a relatively standard expectation amongst the group. Then encourage your Players to explore their PC's Morality, pushing the boundaries and suggesting when they feel their PC is doing something thats morally conflicting for them.

It's important to know ...... killing doesn't earn you Conflict and .... even more important .... the stun setting doesn't let you off the Conflict hook. The only time actual killing earns Conflict is when it's murder. In any other instance it's not about whether or not you kill but whether or not you resort to violence as the first option. Thus if you have stun guns but you resort to violence first and foremost you are going to earn Conflict, even if no one dies. Flip side if you kill a bunch of thugs but attempted to deescalate the situation you're not going to earn any Conflict. So first things first ..... break everyone from death=Conflict. That's not the case. It's intent to violence that creates Conflict.

As for avoiding Conflict, so long as you make the non Conflict choice the harder choice then you're fine. Look players are going to avoid Conflict if that's their thing. This is definition a player issue in that they simply DO NOT WANT TO GAIN ANY CONFLICT WHATSOEVER. This game assumes that everyone will earn some Conflict here and there and that's ok. You're meant to. If they aren't earning Conflict though .... they don't roll for Morality at the end of the night. If they earn a little bit, yeah they'll go up. But what you do is you include more and more chances for them to earn a little bit here and a little bit there. And if they are avoiding earning in Conflict then those choices need to be the harder route. If they want to play on hard mode more power to them.

I would also talk to them about their aversion to earning Conflict. I would highlight how earning Conflict is not evil. Or being evil. It's about how you handle moral quandaries. It's about explore right and wrong by doing. It's about how hard it is to be good in an evil world. Earning Conflict represents making a moral choice. Morality role is about how you resolve that moral choice. I would encourage them to explore those hard choices. I would let them know that in the long run the only time characters actually fall is when the character decides to fall. Most characters if they act like normal human beings are going to go up more times than down. Stress that going down is expected. This is why the threshold for Darksider is so low. It's meant to give you plenty of wiggle room to have some slip ups.

Do a search on my name and take a look at my thoughts in other threads. I go into better detail in a few other places what Morality truly is and I'm kinda short on time tonight to go in depth as I normally do. But I think you'll find those thoughts very helpful in the long run for handling Morality and Conflict.

But seriously though .... stun setting is not a dodge on Conflict. If they get stun weapons and less lethal weapons so that they can dodge earning Conflict let them know you get the same Conflict for stunning or killing (since murder is the only act of killing specifically listed as earning automatic Conflict). Stress that so long as they aren't resorting to violence as their first option and are exploring ways in which to avoiding violence then they'll be fine, even if they end up killing someone (though how they kill can play a roll. You drop a guy off a cliff with Move and you're gonna earn Conflict).

It's important to know ...... killing doesn't earn you Conflict and .... even more important .... the stun setting doesn't let you off the Conflict hook. The only time actual killing earns Conflict is when it's murder. In any other instance it's not about whether or not you kill but whether or not you resort to violence as the first option. Thus if you have stun guns but you resort to violence first and foremost you are going to earn Conflict, even if no one dies. Flip side if you kill a bunch of thugs but attempted to deescalate the situation you're not going to earn any Conflict. So first things first ..... break everyone from death=Conflict. That's not the case. It's intent to violence that creates Conflict.

Very important point here.

Did the players find themselves backed into a corner? surrounded by thugs trying to kill them? Sure fight your way out, you may get a little angry, use a few DS pips to do some extra damage, but your not going to be conflicted about it afterwards. But backing NPC's into a corner, even if you didn't start the fight, then killing them since they are a potential future threat? thats conflict right there!

Using stun weapons will reduce the conflict a bit, your just harming someone not outright killing, but you could still be acting in anger and it could be seen as torture.