This very thing came up in our last session. A Force-user's Morality triggered and they have Bravery and Recklessness as their Emotional Strenth and Weakness, respectively. At a point in the game they rushed in to face two very dangerous dark side creatures and used the Force to defeat them. They had already been seriously harmed by one of the creatures, so was this brave or reckless? At the end of the session their roll didn't generate a drop in Morality, so we decided it was brave. Had they dropped in Morality, we would've said it was reckless.

Not all our calls happen after the game and we just go with the moment, but Morality's been working for us. It's ebbed and flowed and there have even been player-driven requests that they might take Conflict for actions that don't necessarily generate it, but the player felt should, because of where the character was "coming from".

As far as the "I'm at 100! I can stab this baby in the face and still be a paragon!"...no. Our group agrees that gaming the system this way is bad form and don't allow such shenanigans, regardless of the mechanics.That may spawn arguments with rules-lawyers, but to me that's a separate issue.

What I enjoy about the Morality system (as well as how fear is handled) is that it doesn't take control from the player. It's their choice to take Conflict or not and even if they fall, they aren't forced to turn their character into an to NPC.

In reference to "sleeping your way to paragon", I disagree. There's almost always a chance to give into your baser instincts and desires, even if just a little. For the instances there aren't, and you move towards the light, then fine. Being a paragon isn't just about the turning away from the dark side, I see the potential of not encountering it at all. For example, a hermit who lives in peaceful harmony with nature won't have many (if any) chances to interact with the dark side, at least not in the mechanical sense. Should they not find the inner peace and harmony of being a paragon? I don't feel that should be the case.

Is the system perfect? No, but it feels good to me and past mechanics for falling to the dark side felt more arbitrary. I feel it should lean towards being good. Not just in the face of conflict, but in the absence of it as well.

I feel like the best combat spec to get tl LSP is probably warden w/precision strike.But thats OT. I agree with other posters, this is a player mechanic, and its led to some great story telling moments at my table. My faverite give in to the weakness moment was with curiosity/obsession. The player's were on Alexandria(A planet) and there was a giant fire going on.(Which was entirely the players fault.) There was a group of inocent people trapped right next to the door to the library, so one player said that their character, "Runs toward the people, and yells 'I'm coming!' before diving in through a window into the library, grabs a whole bunch of datatapes, and yells 'So long losers.' at the people trapped at the flaming door." Sure he got a lot of conflict, but I gave him some extra XP too. During the same game another one of the PCs with Bravery/Recklessness said that his character "runs toward the poor souls trpped at the flaming door." we all looked at the other player, then he continued "and takes a extrmely large detour at a donut shop. And then he goes and rescues them. By dodging fires, and the such. Ducking under beams. And eventually gets all the innocents out." I gave +5 Morality right there as well as some bonus XP. And from then on... he had to make fear checks whenever we ran into big fires.

Another point to help the system along, from a GM standpoint, would be to engage their players' Force powers in a time-sensitive, under-pressure way, with bad thing ensuing if they fail - which is incentive to take Conflict for using Dark Side pips.

For example, a player's character has Enhance, with the upgrade for Force Leap. The GM should already give him some good opportunities to use this. But I would do exactly that, and put him under pressure. He gets one shot at the jump, because maybe he'll fall into an abyss, he'll be spotted by a patrol coming around the corner, the pursuing thugs will get another volley of blaster fire off if he's not hiding in the second story with a conveniently open window. All very good reasons to use the Dark Side on a crummy roll, by establishing bad stuff if he doesn't make it. And it's dependent on the dice, not pure GM screw-the-paladin evil.

This will work with a lot of different scenarios, though some Force powers like Battle Meditation won't work so well. You need to Seek someone out... before someone else finds him in the city. You need to Sense the surface thoughts on a noblewoman at a party... but are only going to be engaged for one dance, or engaged when you accidentally bump into her. A speeder got shot down and will crash if you don't manage Move on your first try. If you botch your Misdirect roll, you will be spotted by stormtroopers, no questions asked. The locals hate Jedi and if you can't Heal a wounded old man on the first go, the angry crowd will call you a fraud and probably get violent.

This not only means that the action is more continuous, but it means that the players can't just keep trying until they get Light Side pips. They get one go, and the Dark Side is the backup plan.

EDIT: This continues in the vein of incentivizing bad choices, from my above post. It merely means in-game incentive, rather than metagame incentive.

Another point to help the system along, from a GM standpoint, would be to engage their players' Force powers in a time-sensitive, under-pressure way, with bad thing ensuing if they fail - which is incentive to take Conflict for using Dark Side pips.

For example, a player's character has Enhance, with the upgrade for Force Leap. The GM should already give him some good opportunities to use this. But I would do exactly that, and put him under pressure. He gets one shot at the jump, because maybe he'll fall into an abyss, he'll be spotted by a patrol coming around the corner, the pursuing thugs will get another volley of blaster fire off if he's not hiding in the second story with a conveniently open window. All very good reasons to use the Dark Side on a crummy roll, by establishing bad stuff if he doesn't make it. And it's dependent on the dice, not pure GM screw-the-paladin evil.

This will work with a lot of different scenarios, though some Force powers like Battle Meditation won't work so well. You need to Seek someone out... before someone else finds him in the city. You need to Sense the surface thoughts on a noblewoman at a party... but are only going to be engaged for one dance, or engaged when you accidentally bump into her. A speeder got shot down and will crash if you don't manage Move on your first try. If you botch your Misdirect roll, you will be spotted by stormtroopers, no questions asked. The locals hate Jedi and if you can't Heal a wounded old man on the first go, the angry crowd will call you a fraud and probably get violent.

This not only means that the action is more continuous, but it means that the players can't just keep trying until they get Light Side pips. They get one go, and the Dark Side is the backup plan.

EDIT: This continues in the vein of incentivizing bad choices, from my above post. It merely means in-game incentive, rather than metagame incentive.

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma? Force-users CAN move stuff with their mind. You didn't do this with negative intent, or fueled by your rage. You, in fact, were trying to avoid a conflict, where those mooks might have had to die, and yet because the Force is apparently fickle (the dice are), somehow there was a negative gain, here. Maybe there's some succumbing to fear that you would be caught, or having to hurt them, but it seems a bit odd how, when you do something with no ill intent, nor negative emotions, you move closer to the Dark Side. Crushing a beer can with the Force isn't an offense, but crushing someone's throat, like Darth Vader does, is because he tried to hurt someone, and with malicious intent. While I know I've said a lot about liking this system's dark side stuff, it does confuse me when you can err on the side of evil when doing something where no evil was involved. It sort of makes me wonder if, for storytelling purposes, there might be times where I just handwave it, and say "whatever you could accomplish with one pip, you just succeed, if the consequences for failure are non-existent . Perhaps charge them 2-3 strain, or something, but much like d20's "taking 10", if you will. Once you reach a certain skill level, it seems unlikely that the simplest things should still have a decent chance of failing, and while I've fervently argued that flipping a pip is intentional, to the system, and not, in and of itself, automatically moving that much closer to the Dark Side, it just tends to seem strange for the moral angle to appear in an entirely neutral situation.

Another point to help the system along, from a GM standpoint, would be to engage their players' Force powers in a time-sensitive, under-pressure way, with bad thing ensuing if they fail - which is incentive to take Conflict for using Dark Side pips.

For example, a player's character has Enhance, with the upgrade for Force Leap. The GM should already give him some good opportunities to use this. But I would do exactly that, and put him under pressure. He gets one shot at the jump, because maybe he'll fall into an abyss, he'll be spotted by a patrol coming around the corner, the pursuing thugs will get another volley of blaster fire off if he's not hiding in the second story with a conveniently open window. All very good reasons to use the Dark Side on a crummy roll, by establishing bad stuff if he doesn't make it. And it's dependent on the dice, not pure GM screw-the-paladin evil.

This will work with a lot of different scenarios, though some Force powers like Battle Meditation won't work so well. You need to Seek someone out... before someone else finds him in the city. You need to Sense the surface thoughts on a noblewoman at a party... but are only going to be engaged for one dance, or engaged when you accidentally bump into her. A speeder got shot down and will crash if you don't manage Move on your first try. If you botch your Misdirect roll, you will be spotted by stormtroopers, no questions asked. The locals hate Jedi and if you can't Heal a wounded old man on the first go, the angry crowd will call you a fraud and probably get violent.

This not only means that the action is more continuous, but it means that the players can't just keep trying until they get Light Side pips. They get one go, and the Dark Side is the backup plan.

EDIT: This continues in the vein of incentivizing bad choices, from my above post. It merely means in-game incentive, rather than metagame incentive.

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma? Force-users CAN move stuff with their mind. You didn't do this with negative intent, or fueled by your rage. You, in fact, were trying to avoid a conflict, where those mooks might have had to die, and yet because the Force is apparently fickle (the dice are), somehow there was a negative gain, here. Maybe there's some succumbing to fear that you would be caught, or having to hurt them, but it seems a bit odd how, when you do something with no ill intent, nor negative emotions, you move closer to the Dark Side. Crushing a beer can with the Force isn't an offense, but crushing someone's throat, like Darth Vader does, is because he tried to hurt someone, and with malicious intent. While I know I've said a lot about liking this system's dark side stuff, it does confuse me when you can err on the side of evil when doing something where no evil was involved. It sort of makes me wonder if, for storytelling purposes, there might be times where I just handwave it, and say "whatever you could accomplish with one pip, you just succeed, if the consequences for failure are non-existent . Perhaps charge them 2-3 strain, or something, but much like d20's "taking 10", if you will. Once you reach a certain skill level, it seems unlikely that the simplest things should still have a decent chance of failing, and while I've fervently argued that flipping a pip is intentional, to the system, and not, in and of itself, automatically moving that much closer to the Dark Side, it just tends to seem strange for the moral angle to appear in an entirely neutral situation.

The reason why you might gain Conflict not Dark Side Cookies, in your example, is that it could be fear of being caught, or death, or any number of other emotions that they tap into right at the jump. Maybe at the last second, they look down, and see the deep void they are about to jump over, and it fills them with dread to their core. I've actually got personal experience with this. I went rock climbing with a friend, high on pot, in the middle of the night, without a rope. Really REALLY stupid, but we did it anyway. And we came to a gap in the rock face that we had to jump over. Now the jump itself wasn't that wide, maybe 2-3 feet at most, and at 6ft 4in, that's not a big deal for me to make. But when he shone the light down into the gap, and the darkness swallowed up the light of the beam, making it seem like a bottomless pit, I was terrified. No amount of rational thought would stop my emotional brain freaking the hell out. I made the jump, but you could easily say it was fueled by fear of death. Same thing with those dark side pips. It doesn't automatically mean you are falling to the Dark Side, but it means you are taking risks, tapping into what you might consider the radioactive energy source, instead of the eco-friendly energy soure. Sure, a few rads of exposure might not hurt you, but over time, and if you get enough exposure, it might.

To give you an example from Rebels, when Ezra taps into the Dark to call upon those light sensitive aliens to defend them. He didn't mean to do anything bad, he just wanted to be protected, and he let his emotions color that call. It worked, really well , but it opened him up to more easily tap into that power later, and thus risk temptation to the Dark Side.

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma?

This is one big reason I don't use Conflict. The idea that the state of mind of your character is flopping around willy nilly depending on a dice roll is ludicrous to me. There is no way I would narrate every dark pip as "ooo, you're feeling fearful, you're giving in to your aannggeerrrr...". Instead, IMHO the dark pip simply represents the difficulty of anyone to remain calm in a crisis and not accept the easy power offered by the dark side. Strain and DP flip represents the character overcoming the temptation. If they want to use the dark pip directly (without spending Strain and/or DP), it will come with a direct Morality hit (as I described earlier in this thread).

I find this drives the narrative far more interestingly than bean-counting Conflict.

The Conflict mechanic is designed for nit-pickery. It also caters to the faulty (IMHO) premise that lots of little good deeds can make up for lots of little bad deeds, or a few really bad deeds.

I just tweak Morality directly. The scale useful as a broad sense of the lightness or darkness of a character at that point in time, but you can slide the scale as you wish...a paragon with Morality 70 shouldn't expect that murder will only bring him down to 60. Depending on the circumstances it should either bring you to the dark-side line, or cross over immediately. And it should be a lot easier to go down than up.

To that effect I'm treating Morality hits like Critical hits. I'm still winging it (we haven't explored a lot of Morality stuff yet in my group) so I don't have a solid framework, but in general terms, evil acts impose a critical hit that you have to redeem within the narrative. Otherwise those critical hits stick around, possibly having a mechanical effect.

The other thing I'm considering (but haven't had cause to implement yet) is that dark siders and light siders have some penalties and benefits to certain social skills. I'm not a fan of the DP and Strain mechanic, but tweaking Charm and Coercion (and maybe others) would have more of an impact, especially in a social setting.

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma?

This is one big reason I don't use Conflict. The idea that the state of mind of your character is flopping around willy nilly depending on a dice roll is ludicrous to me. There is no way I would narrate every dark pip as "ooo, you're feeling fearful, you're giving in to your aannggeerrrr...". Instead, IMHO the dark pip simply represents the difficulty of anyone to remain calm in a crisis and not accept the easy power offered by the dark side. Strain and DP flip represents the character overcoming the temptation. If they want to use the dark pip directly (without spending Strain and/or DP), it will come with a direct Morality hit (as I described earlier in this thread).

I find this drives the narrative far more interestingly than bean-counting Conflict.

Only bean counting if you want it to be...

Murder 10

Younglings x10

=100 Conflict

Good luck rolling that on a d10...

I imagined being a Star Wars space wizard once, and I help people move, like alot, so I probably would be a good wizard...but sometimes I'm TKing the couch ten stories to the ground instead of carrying it down the stairs just cause I can...which is my vanity showing and a path to the dark side imho...yoda...needs a cane...lol...nah...he could zip around like when he was fighting Dooku anytime, but he doesn't.

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma?

This is one big reason I don't use Conflict. The idea that the state of mind of your character is flopping around willy nilly depending on a dice roll is ludicrous to me. There is no way I would narrate every dark pip as "ooo, you're feeling fearful, you're giving in to your aannggeerrrr...". Instead, IMHO the dark pip simply represents the difficulty of anyone to remain calm in a crisis and not accept the easy power offered by the dark side. Strain and DP flip represents the character overcoming the temptation. If they want to use the dark pip directly (without spending Strain and/or DP), it will come with a direct Morality hit (as I described earlier in this thread).

I find this drives the narrative far more interestingly than bean-counting Conflict.

Now that is an interesting system, and makes a whole lot of sense. I just never heard it put like that. How do you handle Morality increase? Is it based on character actions proving if you will, that they're truly repentant?

I know that one thing that did confuse my friends out of wanting to play this, and made me a bit confused, too, was basically your very example. You are on the edge of the precipice, desperately trying to evade, or escape, incoming enemies. You gauge the distance, decide you need to Force- leap, rather than regular jump, and do so. As you roll your one die, maybe two, you don't get any white pips, and decide you need to convert a black one, to make the leap. Where is the Dark Side really involved in that, though? Where is the moral dilemma?

This is one big reason I don't use Conflict. The idea that the state of mind of your character is flopping around willy nilly depending on a dice roll is ludicrous to me. There is no way I would narrate every dark pip as "ooo, you're feeling fearful, you're giving in to your aannggeerrrr...". Instead, IMHO the dark pip simply represents the difficulty of anyone to remain calm in a crisis and not accept the easy power offered by the dark side. Strain and DP flip represents the character overcoming the temptation. If they want to use the dark pip directly (without spending Strain and/or DP), it will come with a direct Morality hit (as I described earlier in this thread).

I find this drives the narrative far more interestingly than bean-counting Conflict.

I also like narrating a DS pip as the action being rushed or hasty, acting without thought of the consequences, instead of controlled and thoughtful and calm. The Conflict is the character looking back later on and realising they didn't think before acting, if they loose Morality at the end of the session then they decided that "it worked this time didn't it, no harm done, ill do it agin next time".

But i totally agree that Morality is super hard to KEEP in the narrative of the story. Its similar to keeping the bigger aspects of Duty/Obligation in the story, such as a high Party Obligation is supposed to have social consequences of nice people hating them and nasty people thinking their great. the problem is the Duty/Obligation things can be forgotten without noticing, Morality feels much more engrained within the character.

How do you handle Morality increase? Is it based on character actions proving if you will, that they're truly repentant?

We're still working out the details, but yes, that's the idea. A character's actions can redeem one or more "critical hits", but it has to be truly selfless and risky. Then the player and I would negotiate what the impact of that is and where their Morality score sits after the event...assuming they survive...

Of course if they have no critical hits their Morality can take a great leap upwards after such an action.

It's possible this house rule is simply due to the fact that my players generally aren't murder hobos or vicious for no reason. So I haven't felt the pressure tally up every moral slip. I don't know whether it would work for a more violent group, they'd probably be dark-siders in no time and never come out.

I imagined being a Star Wars space wizard once, and I help people move, like alot, so I probably would be a good wizard...but sometimes I'm TKing the couch ten stories to the ground instead of carrying it down the stairs just cause I can...which is my vanity showing and a path to the dark side imho...yoda...needs a cane...lol...nah...he could zip around like when he was fighting Dooku anytime, but he doesn't.

I can see where you are coming from, but, on the other hand, it also sort of sounds like being punished for getting good at something, and then doing it, because you are good at it, and the only reason it is a problem is because you are using the Force, instead of a machine, or something. Storm, from the X-Men continuity, can fly, by manipulating wind to hold her aloft. In the X-Men world, stairs are certainly still a thing, but she COULD fly down them (and most fliers in Marvel probably do). I'm not thinking she should feel bad, or suddenly become "Dark Phoenix Storm", because she couldn't be bothered to use the stairs, after the world gave her abilities that might circumvent it. If I'm an old wizard, lounging about in my tower, writing my memoirs (spells), and I wiggle my fingers to make my cup of tea, or another well of ink, float over to me, I'm not any closer to switching from Elminster to Szass Tam. Mystra isn't going to punish me for using her powers, after she gave me the knowledge of how to do so. Sorry to run off into D&D there, but it is another example of the power behind the magic, if you will, sometimes being viewed as alive, aware, and with an opinion, and other times just being another persona-less force in the world, like gravity, tides, and time, that doesn't see us, care what happens to us, or even notice if we actively change it; it's not "alive", it just "is". Mystra cares what evil people do with the magic that stems from her, but she doesn't take it away from those very seem evil wizards; she accepts that magic is going to be used in many ways, and not all are good, and sometimes she trains good wizards to try and keep the evil ones in check, even though she is a relatively Good deity, and a Greater Power, at that. (And yes, I do know that there are myriad reasons she doesn't strip the evil wizards of their power, even though she might like to, it's not entirely the point.)

Yes, I DO know that most of what I said up there is pointless, but it seems weird to be punished for using the Force, just for using it, if any other means is possible, and any other such means don't really get you Morality/Conflict problems, for the most part. I can lift the cup with my mind, problem, or I can have my little, modified sensor ball carry it over, fine. New plan? Never use the Force; it punishes you for being lazy, like nothing else ever does.

As for the cane, I think Yoda, like Palpatine, mostly keeps it for appearances sake. Certainly, both of them are ancient men, and infirmity snags the best of us, but it's rather accepted that the Emperor keeps it purely for appearances; he conceals his abilities from the masses, and an old man, WITHOUT superpowers, should need a walking stick, but he DOES have superpowers, and when called for, he can certainly move fine, and engage foes, without it, even 20 years later, in Return of the Jedi. Now, Yoda might be a different case, as I believe, from older material, that the Force does extend one's lifespan, so that older men, like Kenobi, and Dooku, remain pretty spry at 80, even without overtly using the Force to muppetize themselves, like Yoda does, but we don't know what Yoda's species is like, apart from him, and a small handful of others (Yaddle, Vandar, and Jedi Master Admiral Oteg are the ones I can name without looking it up) who are somewhat copies of him, to try and capitalize on the love of the character (Jango Fett ), and thus I don't know what their average lifespan, without the Force, is, to say "is Yoda already double that? Triple? 900 is old for not-Hutts and not-Gen-Dai."Might he need it? I suppose, as he rides around in Aun'Va's chair, for a while, when he could hoof it, but I'm inclined to think it is also partly for appearances. He is known to be one of the greatest Jedi of all time, and to many of those people, he has been around for all time; he almost remembers when the Sith were real, but he doesn't want to be seen as the wizard who got good at magic in order to use it well (and make his life easier), so he keeps the cane, and seems to use the Force only when necessary, unless Chewbacca COULD lift him up, but why make him do that, when he's already going to piggy-back you around, like Luke does, later? Doesn't give Kenobi any guff, though, for not taking those extra steps to pick up his holo-orb.

Okay, even I admit this was pointless ramble, just not enough so to not post it; it was a lot of typing , so if it just gets skipped over, that's fine, and if not, well I'll see where that goes. It just seems weird how only a few people, maybe a destined few, can use the Force, at all, and among these, even those should basically never use it, for fear of it thinking that was unnecessary, even though other traditions later go on to show that the Force is actually rather neutral, sort of uncaring, in and of itself, how it is used, and much more diverse than "light and dark", though that was all burned by Disney, so perhaps a mot point.

How do you handle Morality increase? Is it based on character actions proving if you will, that they're truly repentant?

We're still working out the details, but yes, that's the idea. A character's actions can redeem one or more "critical hits", but it has to be truly selfless and risky. Then the player and I would negotiate what the impact of that is and where their Morality score sits after the event...assuming they survive...

Of course if they have no critical hits their Morality can take a great leap upwards after such an action.

It's possible this house rule is simply due to the fact that my players generally aren't murder hobos or vicious for no reason. So I haven't felt the pressure tally up every moral slip. I don't know whether it would work for a more violent group, they'd probably be dark-siders in no time and never come out.

What constitutes a critical hit in terms of morality?

My players tend not to be murder hobos, but then, it seems like murder hobos should just go evil pretty quickly. Makes sense.

It just seems weird how only a few people, maybe a destined few, can use the Force, at all, and among these, even those should basically never use it, for fear of it thinking that was unnecessary, even though other traditions later go on to show that the Force is actually rather neutral, sort of uncaring, in and of itself, how it is used, and much more diverse than "light and dark", though that was all burned by Disney, so perhaps a mot point.

From how I see it, something the Jedi were always trying to achieve but not really getting, is the key aspect of balance . Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. It's not about control, or suppression, it's about understanding the appropriate time to do something and when not to do something and complying with it.

That being said, I think the idea that 'the Force should not be used casually' originated more in the meta of the fiction than the lore. I think there was a big complaint about many of the sub-par writers in the EU (especially the days after the Thrawn trilogy) just treating the Force as superpowers, outrageous far beyond what the OT showed, and other writers basically said 'that nonsense has got to stop,' so they threw that rule in to temper it.

And I can sympathize. Once upon a time in Starwarsland, telekinetically lifting an X-wing a few feet of the ground was the most monumental thing we've ever seen on screen. I can't think of a scene in the movies or shows, OT, PT, or ST (yet), and TCW (although I've heard Rebels has some unusual things) that really trumps that. Now, in this game alone, there are debates (justified or no) about using Move to monkey around with silhouette 4 sized vehicles with very minimal investment.

From how I see it, something the Jedi were always trying to achieve but not really getting, is the key aspect of balance . Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. It's not about control, or suppression, it's about understanding the appropriate time to do something and when not to do something and complying with it.

That being said, I think the idea that 'the Force should not be used casually' originated more in the meta of the fiction than the lore. I think there was a big complaint about many of the sub-par writers in the EU (especially the days after the Thrawn trilogy) just treating the Force as superpowers, outrageous far beyond what the OT showed, and other writers basically said 'that nonsense has got to stop,' so they threw that rule in to temper it.

Well, it's not exclusive to Star Wars fanfiction, I mean the EU. The World of Darkness Mage gameline makes mention of using magic to simply make your life easier, can lead you to relying on it for everything. To just using it to fix all your problems, which can lead to bad choices. The Dresden Files discuss this fairly well, and I think the concept is similar to what they are trying to do with the Force. But I do agree that a lot of the clunky baggage about the Force and how it works, is due to 30+ years of hundreds of authors, making their own spin on how it works, and why. Much like comic books, the second a new writer comes in, they retcon tons of stuff because it conflicts with the story they want to tell.

On the other hand, I can easily see how using the Force for showing off or other trivial things, can lead to problems.

Example: You use the Force in a way that impresses a crowd, they shower you with praise, and gifts, for doing something so dramatic to help them. You feel great from the heroic reinforcement of your actions. Then you do something later, now expecting a reaction from what you do. But group 2 doesn't seem all that impressed, or at the very least, don't treat you like a hero. You now feel cheated out of your just rewards, and now feel anger. Maybe now, due to that anger, you will be less inclined to use your powers to help the dirty savages, if they can't appreciate the effort you went to to help them. That's sort of how I could see an internal dialogue of a Force user, as his Morality slipped, based on doing actions for frivolous reasons.

Personally though, I think the better reason to not use your powers casually, if playing in Rebellion Era, is simply "You just sent up a COME FIND ME" flare to the Empire, and get ready for dudes with red sabers to hound you all the time.

And I can sympathize. Once upon a time in Starwarsland, telekinetically lifting an X-wing a few feet of the ground was the most monumental thing we've ever seen on screen. I can't think of a scene in the movies or shows, OT, PT, or ST (yet), and TCW (although I've heard Rebels has some unusual things) that really trumps that. Now, in this game alone, there are debates (justified or no) about using Move to monkey around with silhouette 4 sized vehicles with very minimal investment.

Well that's just partly due to Hollywood, and the nerd audience wanting to see cooler stuff in the movies, so they always have to top the last one. Phantom Menace didn't just have a guy with a red saber, it was a double-bladed red saber! He didn't just fight one Jedi, he fought two of them! EXTREEEEME!

Though the bit about the Move thing "with minimal investment". I wouldn't call roughly 200XP to consistently move large objects "minimal investment". You need FR 2 to have a decent chance of regularly pulling that off, and the cheapest path to FR 2 is like 70xp in Sage or Seer. That's not counting all the XP you'd need to invest in Move to buy the upgrades needed to target something that big. So yeah, that's basically Knight Level XP or so investment into that, and only that, to be able to pull that off. I wouldn't personally call that "minimal", as you would be excluding your PC from any other kind of improvement to accomplish it.

I think one way that the OT and FFG frame it is that the Force takes a LOT of concentration. When Luke is training on Dagobah, one peep out of R2 and he falters. Even Yoda closes his eyes to lift a starship. More often than not, someone using the Force has his eyes shut tight. TFA also supports this with Rey.

The conclusion that I always drew from this, is that you have to be calm, and at peace, focused, to use the Force. Unless you're A) a master doing something simple ("These aren't the droids you're looking for") or B) tapping into the Dark Side via fear, anger, etc. Which can be reflected pretty well with the current system - only Dark Side pips? Well you just can't focus, but the Dark Side is whispering in your ear, and can be accessed more easily. The Dark Side is just wearing, hence the strain cost.

I'm not saying I support the system 100% as it is, but I think this is why they chose the system that they do have.

What constitutes a critical hit in terms of morality?

Unwarranted violence, causing fear, letting bad things happen to others...same stuff as in the Conflict table. If the PCs are reasonably decent I don't sweat the occasional coercion, fibbing, etc.

Yikes - three pages! That's what I get for getting busy and stepping away for a day or so!

Anyway, I like the idea of flipping the morality, that you have to do fluffy things to move towards the light instead of occasional moments of naughty that drag you back towards the dark. I'll have to look at the table and think on that, see if I can come up with the mirror version and try it out away from the table - see how the test runs play out.

And yeah, reading over everything - I agree that this mechanic of the three really leans heavy on player engagement more than the GM setting plots in motion (although they have to do that too). Which is strange, having morality be a total dud for my group, since we can occasionally really get into the characters, sometimes going most of the evening without touching the dice or raising a blaster. Like one player who said that her character hadn't really clicked yet, that she's not gotten a handle on them yet (although that's really a topic for a whole different thread).

The mechanics work fairly well for me. One thing that you might consider, is something that GMPhil mentioned on an O66 podcast, and he was quoting someone else that I don't recall. "Conflict isn't Dark Side Cookies. Conflict is conflict. You break up with your lover? Get a little conflict as you are upset by it. Get seriously injured, and thus have a near death experience? Conflict. Lose a job or get shunned in some way by your social circle? Conflict." etc etc. It's to try and track their emotional/mental stability. If things are happening to make them question what they should do, they should probably earn some conflict.

Yeah, that's a solid point. I should probably go more nickle and diming them with one and two points here or there instead of the big Throwing the Lightsaber Away moments. Hopefully they don't perceive that as me suddenly having a heavy hand out of nowhere.

Yeah, that's a solid point. I should probably go more nickle and diming them with one and two points here or there instead of the big Throwing the Lightsaber Away moments. Hopefully they don't perceive that as me suddenly having a heavy hand out of nowhere.

It's worked pretty well for me so far. You do have to remember to sometimes ask them why they are doing something. If the answer is something like "Because this guy is annoying me and I want to do something to piss him off." It should probably get a point of Conflict.

An in-game example from my table. I had my 2 pc's interacting with a politician character, that one of them didn't like very much. I made the NPC very snooty, and while not exactly arrogant, he was a bit of a jerk. And he was kind of corrupt, basically trying to bribe the two PC's to help push his agenda in the upcoming negotiations, since they were close friends to the mediator (their Mentor). This sort of annoyed one of the players, and she thought about messing with his drink, by spiking it with something. I forget what, but something. Why? Just for spite really. I pointed out that this would net the PC a bit of conflict, and she decided to pass on doing it. But that's a separate issue, going back to a previous issue I've mentioned in...I think this thread? Maybe another one. *shrugs* They blur together. About players metagaming their behavior to try and avoid anything negative happening. If it had been my PC, I probably still would've gone through with it. And just taken the Conflict. But that's me, and I have a different playstyle from my friend.

Failing fear checks due to anything (first time being in a life/death situation, though that should probably have conflict regardless, just not as much as failing fear checks). Being seriously injured, etc. It's quite useful. Though the other thing I did, which is totally a house rule, so take it with a grain of salt. Get rid of the requirement to flip a Destiny Point to use Dark Side pips. Aside from the "Dark Side Pips = Evil Puppy Killer!" mindset, the simple mechanical restriction also limits how often a player can use those pips. By removing it, my players have been way more willing to tap into those pips when needed. All I did was increase the strain cost by +1. So if they spend 2 dark pips, they get 3 strain. It's been working out just fine. They can use it whenever they want, and not only when they have the light side DP to burn, and the strain cost is steep enough to be a concern, without being a handicap.

KungFuFerret, on 12 May 2016 - 2:40 PM, said:

An in-game example from my table. I had my 2 pc's interacting with a politician character, that one of them didn't like very much. I made the NPC very snooty, and while not exactly arrogant, he was a bit of a jerk. And he was kind of corrupt, basically trying to bribe the two PC's to help push his agenda in the upcoming negotiations, since they were close friends to the mediator (their Mentor). This sort of annoyed one of the players, and she thought about messing with his drink, by spiking it with something. I forget what, but something. Why? Just for spite really. I pointed out that this would net the PC a bit of conflict, and she decided to pass on doing it. But that's a separate issue, going back to a previous issue I've mentioned in...I think this thread? Maybe another one. *shrugs* They blur together. About players metagaming their behavior to try and avoid anything negative happening. If it had been my PC, I probably still would've gone through with it. And just taken the Conflict. But that's me, and I have a different playstyle from my friend.

Ferret put the finger, in my opinion, on the major problem of the Morality system: metagaming players. Every time they do conflicting actions and you tell them, they want to back away, fearing the big bad conflict points. I know it. It take me 3 months to break that mentality from my players. Most players seem incapable of playing normal people with their qualities and flaws. It's either the godly paragon who wont do something harmful even if its life depend on it or the murder hobo without morality. sigh.

Yeah it's never an easy thing to manage. On one hand, you want to be fair and warn them of the possible ramifications of what they do. On the other hand, it almost seems like you are giving them a get out of jail free card in doing so.

Yeah it's never an easy thing to manage. On one hand, you want to be fair and warn them of the possible ramifications of what they do. On the other hand, it almost seems like you are giving them a get out of jail free card in doing so.

Yeah, that's kind of the boat I'm in. The group seems to be able to logically say "Yeah, one or two pips isn't a big deal", but I've noticed a trend to kind of back away from them. It's a tough habit to break.

KungFuFerret, on 12 May 2016 - 2:40 PM, said:

An in-game example from my table. I had my 2 pc's interacting with a politician character, that one of them didn't like very much. I made the NPC very snooty, and while not exactly arrogant, he was a bit of a jerk. And he was kind of corrupt, basically trying to bribe the two PC's to help push his agenda in the upcoming negotiations, since they were close friends to the mediator (their Mentor). This sort of annoyed one of the players, and she thought about messing with his drink, by spiking it with something. I forget what, but something. Why? Just for spite really. I pointed out that this would net the PC a bit of conflict, and she decided to pass on doing it. But that's a separate issue, going back to a previous issue I've mentioned in...I think this thread? Maybe another one. *shrugs* They blur together. About players metagaming their behavior to try and avoid anything negative happening. If it had been my PC, I probably still would've gone through with it. And just taken the Conflict. But that's me, and I have a different playstyle from my friend.

Ferret put the finger, in my opinion, on the major problem of the Morality system: metagaming players. Every time they do conflicting actions and you tell them, they want to back away, fearing the big bad conflict points. I know it. It take me 3 months to break that mentality from my players. Most players seem incapable of playing normal people with their qualities and flaws. It's either the godly paragon who wont do something harmful even if its life depend on it or the murder hobo without morality. sigh.

Yeah it's never an easy thing to manage. On one hand, you want to be fair and warn them of the possible ramifications of what they do. On the other hand, it almost seems like you are giving them a get out of jail free card in doing so.

Yeah it's never an easy thing to manage. On one hand, you want to be fair and warn them of the possible ramifications of what they do. On the other hand, it almost seems like you are giving them a get out of jail free card in doing so.

Yeah, that's kind of the boat I'm in. The group seems to be able to logically say "Yeah, one or two pips isn't a big deal", but I've noticed a trend to kind of back away from them. It's a tough habit to break.

Don't warn them, just give Conflict after the fact. Warning the player that they will recieve Conflict is a metagame GM thing. It's the same as asking a player if they are sure they want their PC to perform a potentially detrimental action. It gives the player direct before the fact OOC knowledge that almost always changes the way the PC will act. I make a rule of NEVER doing this!

Except receiving conflict is not detrimental. It's even the easiest and safest thing you should do. And you will find people complaining and wanting to rewind after they act and you handle them conflict.

The biggest barrier is definitely this concept that going Dark is like the Plague and should be avoided at all costs. Its fine for some PC's to want to be goodie two shoes, but its so much fun being bad, they have no idea what they are missing out on!

The Dark Side is definitely under valued, i wish people would stop avoiding it like the Plague.

Apologies if others have mentioned this already but the Morality section in the GM chapter talks about when to engage a players Moral Strength/Weakness. It basically says only do it if you want to! But also that you don't have to offer up a situation that engages both strength and weakness, it may, but it doesn't have to. It also suggests only Engaging the Strength/Weakness of the PC who's Morality was triggered that session. So its all very similar to the rates at which Obb/Duty are engaged. Rolling at the end of sessions for the next is obviously going to make planing much easier

Honestly i think the hardest part of Morality is judging when an action is conflict worthy for everyone. A close second to that is designing entertaining encounters where there are no good options. Where the question is not whether or not the PC's get conflict but "How much", all while the players are happy with those choices and not screaming "RAILROAD D GM"