Just now, HappyDaze said:

Not all players are going to want to predetermine what their character's emotional strength(s) and weakness(es) are going to be before the character even seen play. They would prefer to roleplay without such rails laid down beforehand and see what comes about as the character grows. You even mention that you do this yourself when you say, "I don't use it, personally, since I prefer to let the story I have in mind tell itself," so you have at least some agreement with the idea. If you take out the strengths & weaknesses, then Morality becomes just a measure of light vs. dark, and while it could be fine like that, it is far less interesting than Obligation (I don't much care for Duty myself, so I'm only going to discuss Obligation) in play.

Strength and Weakness aren't the only personality traits a character has, or even necessarily their most obvious ones. They're just the ones most at the core of the character, which I daresay any experienced roleplayer has already figured out, or at least has an idea about, before starting. It's not rails, in that the character can't act out of other personality traits, or that the character must act out of these ones all the time. And for inexperienced roleplayers, having handy little adjectives to describe their character can help them slip into that altered frame of mind.

1 hour ago, ErikModi said:

...I believe    it requires a more-than-average experienced GM to use it to its full potentia  l ...

I really don't think this is true. But what I'm realizing more and more is just that FFG didn't not provide good enough or complete enough guidance on how to effectively implement Morality.

You really just need to do 3 main things, to successfully use the vanilla Morality system:

1. Get buy-in from the players to engage Morality as a way to explore the choices a Force User must make.

2. Allow the Force to accomplish great things (this is how you tempt otherwise hesitant players to pay the high cost(s) of dark pip use).

3. Be mindful of allowing "Conflict-worthy" actions to serve as shortcuts - an easy way - to successfully complete mission goals/advancing the story (this is how you tempt players to take Conflict worthy actions), and present them as opportunities.

19 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If you take out the strengths & weaknesses, then Morality becomes just a measure of light vs. dark...

This just isn't true.

The Moral Strengths and Weaknesses are perhaps the single least important part of having a functioning Morality mechanic in your game.

We know this primarily by the fact that the guidance on using them is an optional rule.

But also, we can see even when used, all they are is a guideline for the mindful player/GM to have a "signature" Morality scene/choice every once in awhile. All they do is magnify the Conflict results surrounding RP involving them.

Theyre no where near the mechanical or RP tool that something like Alignment in D&D is. They're just an optional "signature thing", for the player who wants to use that kind of guidance.

So, if the statement of " If you take out the strengths & weaknesses, then Morality becomes just a measure of light vs. dark" isn't true, then what is Morality without that component to you?

34 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I really don't think this is true. But what I'm realizing more and more is just that FFG didn't not provide good enough or complete enough guidance on how to effectively implement Morality.

You really just need to do 3 main things, to successfully use the vanilla Morality system:

1. Get buy-in from the players to engage Morality as a way to explore the choices a Force User must make.

2. Allow the Force to accomplish great things (this is how you tempt otherwise hesitant players to pay the high cost(s) of dark pip use).

3. Be mindful of allowing "Conflict-worthy" actions to serve as shortcuts - an easy way - to successfully complete mission goals/advancing the story (this is how you tempt players to take Conflict worthy actions), and present them as opportunities.

I'd like to be a player in a campaign that you GM, and get a first-hand experience in how that is implemented. I like Force user characters, but I feel that Morality is not utilized properly by GMs or players.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

So, if the statement of " If you take out the strengths & weaknesses, then Morality becomes just a measure of light vs. dark" isn't true, then what is Morality without that component to you?

Again, that's a very small part of the mechanic. I would say it is less than 10% of the Conflict I assign in my games. Probably closer to 5% (1 out of every 20 Conflict earned is related to a PCs Moral strength/weakness).

The reflection of an individual's Morality is still there via the ability to assign Conflict for "evil" actions.

I don't know what you're not seeing about that, but I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Again, the Moral Strengths and Weaknesses are just an option to magnify the story-significance of certain choices.

Theres been lots of times where we've played out scenes and an hour or two later, or even multiple sessions later, were like "Oh jeez we should have used your Moral Strength/Weakness in that scene." We didn't, but the Morality system continued to work as a Morality system, and continues to work as a mechanic to explore the choices a Force User must make - easy power vs. what is "right".

49 minutes ago, Volt80 said:

I'd like to be a player in a campaign that you GM, and get a first-hand experience in how that is implemented. I like Force user characters, but I feel that Morality is not utilized properly by GMs or players.

I've run a couple SWRPG Play-by-Post games on Gamersplane over the years. And that's really where I shaped my understanding and ability to use the Morality mechanic.

I've played in, oh, three or four now, campaigns at my weekly IRL meet up over the years, but never GMed. And from that in-person experience really just kind of learned what not to do. We've always played mixed-group games, so Morality has never been a big focus at those.

I'm not running any games at GP at this time, however, and don't have any plans to do so soon, but there are a lot of active SWRPG games going there, and I've tried to spread this "philosophy"/playstyle so you might see these "tactics" in games there. Also, if/when I do start up another game, I recruit from GP exclusively, because that's all I need to do as there's such a large and active swrpg community there, so maybe consider hanging out there?

In the games I've ran tho, I have had players that will basically ASK for Conflict/tell me "My guy's pretty pissed off (or afraid, or what have you) right now, I should probably take some Conflict." And/or ask to make a Discipline or Cool check to determine whether or not they take Conflict/a Conflict-worthy action. And/or just help me identify when Conflict-worthy actions are being taken (like those listed in the Conflict Table), because as GM you often have other things on your mind, and may not notice when a PC casually lies, or coerces someone, or initiates combat even.

That is all what the buy-in is for/does.

And if you notify players when they're about to do something that will warrant Conflict, as the book says you should, this allows the player to always retain control of "who" their PC is. It prevents Conflict from being a punishment for "bad behavior", and it prevents the GM from telling the player "who" their PC is (light or dark). And while it's a highly meta thing to do (which is inherently distasteful to some), this Morality mechanic is just a highly meta mechanic, so that meta-level awareness is just a part of using the Morality mechanic as it was intended.

The rest is hopefully pretty self-explanatory. You tempt Force Users with the Darkside (ie Conflict) by making earning Conflict a choice between "the hard way" (no Conflict) and "the easy way" (Conflict - whether that's using dark pips to trigger that Force Power and its fantastic effect, or whether that's a choice to Steal that access key from the janitor to infiltrate the facility easily, rather than slicing security systems with alarms and picking mechanical locks which takes time, and talking your way past personnel or taking out the patrol which might earn you Conflict anyway, etc.).

Once you get used to identifying ways to do this easy v. hard thing, it really becomes a very easy and effective mechanic to use.

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

Again, that's a very small part of the mechanic. I would say it is less than 10% of the Conflict I assign in my games. Probably closer to 5% (1 out of every 20 Conflict earned is related to a PCs Moral strength/weakness).

The reflection of an individual's Morality is still there via the ability to assign Conflict for "evil" actions.

I don't know what you're not seeing about that, but I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Again, the Moral Strengths and Weaknesses are just an option to magnify the story-significance of certain choices.

Theres been lots of times where we've played out scenes and an hour or two later, or even multiple sessions later, were like "Oh jeez we should have used your Moral Strength/Weakness in that scene." We didn't, but the Morality system continued to work as a Morality system, and continues to work as a mechanic to explore the choices a Force User must make - easy power vs. what is "right".

You didn't answer my question. What is Morality without the strengths/weaknesses other than a gauge of light/dark?

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You didn't answer my question. What is Morality without the strengths/weaknesses other than a gauge of light/dark?

We're apparently speaking two different languages, because if what I said (what you've quoted) didn't clear this up for you, I have no clue what you're trying to ask.

You stated what I said was not true but then effectively agreed with it. I believe you when you say that you have no clue what I'm trying to ask, so I'll let the point go.

7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Not all players are going to want to predetermine what their character's emotional strength(s) and weakness(es) are going to be before the character even seen play. They would prefer to roleplay without such rails laid down beforehand and see what comes about as the character grows. You even mention that you do this yourself when you say, "I don't use it, personally, since I prefer to let the story I have in mind tell itself," so you have at least some agreement with the idea. If you take out the strengths & weaknesses, then Morality becomes just a measure of light vs. dark, and while it could be fine like that, it is far less interesting than Obligation (I don't much care for Duty myself, so I'm only going to discuss Obligation) in play.

You do know you could change them during play right?

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You do know you could change them during play right?

Sure, but if they are not at least somewhat fixed, why both selecting them and writing them down at all? Following from that, if you're not ready to fix them at character creation, at least for a time, why force it?

56 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Sure, but if they are not at least somewhat fixed, why both selecting them and writing them down at all? Following from that, if you're not ready to fix them at character creation, at least for a time, why force it?

Yeah. Writing it down is so the gm can reward RP and changing it should involve the gm.

And that can be as simple as saying "You know, when I envisioned this character, I thought of him more as Brave, but as we're playing, I'm realizing he's more about being Merciful. Can I switch?"

On the mechanics side, one idea I had while reading through everything here was this: in order to use a dark pip, the character has to flip a dark destiny point instead of a light destiny point. The logic is that spending destiny points "benefits" whichever side is spending the point, and gaining conflict benefits the dark side. Not only does the dark side become easier to use, but the very act itself is tempting, as it provides a benefit that other members of the party can take advantage of later.

Typing this out, I wonder if removing the strain cost as well would be appropriate thematically - there is absolutely no cost now to giving in to the dark side, and multiple benefits to doing so. Remaining strong and not succumbing to the temptation becomes a lot harder.

12 minutes ago, Pyremius said:

Typing  this out, I wonder if removing the strain cost as well  would be appropriate thematically - there is absolutely no cost now to giving in to the dark side, and multiple benefits to doing so. R  emaining strong and not succumbing to the te  mptation becomes a lot harder.  

I think rather than either of these houserules (which both drastically alter the involved game mechanic's dynamics), it's most parsimonious for the GM to just make using the Force the temptation, by allowing Powers to achieve great things like they do in the source fiction, and to allow them to be "shortcuts" thru otherwise difficult challenges.

However, removing the Strain cost is by far the single worst idea to try to make Morality work for you.

Stating this cost is not thematic is so massively inaccurate/wrong.

If you've ever read a Star Wars novel (where the audience has tremendous levels of insight into a Force Users internal narrative/process - ie their Morality mechanic), you know that operating out of harmony with the Force (which is what dark pips represent) is very stressful for a Force User. That is Strain.

At most, if you want the tone for your game to be an easier path to the Darkside (or if your players horde Destiny), removal of the Lightside Destiny Point flip/cost for dark pip use is about all you should (need to) do.

Or just make Morality d10 rolls more infrequent.

4 hours ago, Pyremius said:

On the mechanics side, one idea I had while reading through everything here was this: in order to use a dark pip, the character has to flip a dark destiny point instead of a light destiny point. The logic is that spending destiny points "benefits" whichever side is spending the point, and gaining conflict benefits the dark side. Not only does the dark side become easier to use, but the very act itself is tempting, as it provides a benefit that other members of the party can take advantage of later.

Typing this out, I wonder if removing the strain cost as well would be appropriate thematically - there is absolutely no cost now to giving in to the dark side, and multiple benefits to doing so. Remaining strong and not succumbing to the temptation becomes a lot harder.

Flipping a dark side DP is actually going to work in the parties benefit if you have a look at the current situation as per RAW

Dark Side DP in destiny pool GMs resource for putting obstacles in the path of the group, enriching opposing NPC checks or working to the detriment of the player characters and allowing force users (Light side or Dark side) to be able to using opposing pips. Note that all of these are a resource to work against and challenge the PCs

Light Side DP in destiny pool is a resource for the player characters to assist them with the narrative or enrich their checks or detriment their opponents, or to allow them to use the opposing "sides" pips.

Note that the only effect that being light side or dark side has on these pips outside of the above is the penalty for being a Dark Side paragon(flipping a light to dark) or the bonus for the light side paragon to add an additional light side DP. outside of these two exceptions you might as well call them PC rezource and opponents resource. The second you allow a darkside PC to use the GMs story influencing resource, you not only tip the scales in favour of the PCs (instead of having an ebb/flow as described in the core book) you are actually giving them the opportunity to recycle their own destiny points.

Imagine the following exchange 4 DPs in play 2 light 2 dark, PC no1 uses 1 , PC no 2 uses the last one. At this stage a normal group has used up this resource until the GM uses it to balance it up, however if we do what you suggest PC no 3 cycles a dark side to a light now allowing 4 consecutive uses of destiny points, allowing them double the amount of DP they should have had. It's no longer a shared resource between the GMs and player's, it's now mostly a resource for the players , and if they manage to set up the initiative order correctly they can manipulate the destiny pool in their own favour in many ways.

2 hours ago, syrath said:

Note that the only effect that being light side or dark side has on these pips outside of the above is the penalty for being a Dark Side paragon(flipping a light to dark) or the bonus for the light side paragon to add an additional light side DP. outside of these two exceptions you might as well call them PC rezource and opponents resource. The second you allow a darkside PC to use the GMs story influencing resource, you not only tip the scales in favour of the PCs (instead of having an ebb/flow as described in the core book) you are actually giving them the opportunity to recycle their own destiny points.

Up until the Juyo Berserker (JB), this was correct. The JB has a few talents that depend on the amount of DS Destiny in the pool. This applies whether the JB is a PC or an NPC (yes, an NPC could have JB talents). IT does get a little weird, and I suppose you could work it so that an opposing NPC works their JB talents off of the LS Destiny if you prefer the them to be strictly Player/GM rather than Light/Dark.

The biggest problem we have with morality is that there is no real drawback to having low morality. Extra Wound threshold and lower strain isn't really a punishment. If you have a heavy scoundrel campaign and a mix of paragons both light and dark there's no real incentive for redemption. This system is heavily based on the concept that everyone wants to be a paragon of good and that you want to stay that way. What if you decide to play in a different era? What if you have players that have no intention of being good and they don't care with how the other player's morality swings? There's very little written about what to do if you have a character that is sneaky about it and no real rules in place to discourage going to the darkside.

That actually reflects well a part of the lore about Vaapad, the "completed" version of Juyo created by Mace Windu. It feeds off the Dark, but the true master doesn't let the Dark touch him, becoming just a conduit for it to redirect it at the enemy. The stronger in the Dark the opponent is, the more powerful the Vaapad user is. It's actually a nice, subtle touch that I'd overlooked before, but mechanically, the more Dark Side Destiny Points are available, the more powerful the JB is.

I have my issues with the numerical morality mechanic, but I like the Strengths/Weaknesses portion of it because it does give a bit of a framework there for how things can work out for the character on the long arc.

13 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I have my issues with the numerical morality mechanic, but I like the Strengths/Weaknesses portion of it because it does give a bit of a framework there for how things can work out for the character on the long arc.

i had issues with it and felt it was too easy.to keep conflict down, hut over time a number of factorz was that were overlooked

1. The Gm only has to advise that conflict isngoing to be awarded but not the figure

2. each time a character gains conflict, the chart is a guide and can be adjusted by motive

3. if the GM feels the conflict figures are skewed and arent high or low enough they can be adjusted using 3 dark side pips in a session where it was particularly easy to avoid conflict may be enough for 5-9 conflict or more depending on the circumstances that led to the dark side pips being used.

We're just (maybe) wrapping up our current campaign, and I can say with authority and conviction that the morality system sucks.

On 7/1/2018 at 3:51 PM, Desslok said:

Well, after a year of rattling around in my head, we're kicking off a new game and my new concept. The TL;DNR version is that he is a separatist who saw a great deal of **** during the clone wars, spent time in a POW camp (well, really an Imperial processing center where they lost his file for two years) and generally playing a hard badass who is not necessarily a bad guy, but has no issue expediently dealing with someone. Pretty much cut from the Sabata/Sartana/Django/Man With No Name cloth, a generally good person (more or less) who shoots first. And last.

He finds a holochron that has a perfectly reasonable Sith ideology for a core. So instead of mustache twirling UNNNNLIMITED POWAAAAAH, it's all "Well, you could shoot that sniper but wouldn't it be far quieter and quicker if you just force pushed him off that roof?" Basically he falls to the Dark Side because he doesn't know any better. So I intend on leaning hard on the conflict and dark side pips here. I'm interested to see how the morality system handles using both sides as a tool instead of running away from anything remotely dark.

So I got a chance to play through my concept of a hard man who does bad things as necessary, but isn't a sadistic murderhobo and I leaned REALLY hard on the morality. Lets see how long it takes for him to fall by accident, the death of a thousand cuts.

Being an Enforcer (then Padawan from the Rebels book, and then Steel Hand), his default position was to scare the piss out of his enemies first, which was always good for a conflict or two. He would routinely use dark side pips as often as he used the light. Emergency money was just one trip to a casino and a "this is a winning hand" mindtrick away. One time he beat the everluvin **** out of some guy who was sitting on information the team badly needed (coming up with methods that made the other players go "Jesus, where did you think of that?!?"). I would often suggest "That's probably worth a conflict or two" or "yeah, this is going to be worth a bucket of conflict. Hand me the dice."

And more importantly, if nothing conflict worthy came up that session, I didn't roll. Yeah, not the rules as RAW, but it made sense.

After all of that, you know where his current morality is sitting at? 52, two above his starting point. Unless there's an unexpected swerve next (and probably last) game, even doing all this bad stuff all campaign long,, he's still on his way (very slowly) upwards. So yeah, the system as written doesn't work.

On 5/10/2016 at 1:27 PM, Desslok said:

After being in a Jedi heavy game for several months now and having run in that Jedi heavy game a handful of weeks now, I can say with authority that the Morality game mechanic sucks.

Consider Obligation - a nice, sold very defined parameter: you've angered a Black Sun vigo, so bounty hunters could show up at any time and now you need to take dubious jobs that you might otherwise skip because you need some money to pay him off. If you have to go to Nar Shadda, you have to be very careful where you go and who you talk to. There's plenty of story hooks and some great meat for even a lazy GM to spin off into lots and lots of games.

Duty, okay - we've only really started using Duty for the first time ever a couple of weeks ago, so the jury is still out on this mechanic. However on the surface, it still looks to be a very solid story telling tool. It's easy enough for a GM to dangle tons of fish hooks throughout his game and see which ones the players jump at. "Well, you're sneaking across the airfield, and you notice that the way the spotlights cover the tarmac, you can probably sneak over to that troop transport, rig the hyperdrive to blow up when they jump out of system and still not fall behind schedule in keeping your rendezvous".

But Morality? So my hypothetical player has Courage and Recklessness. Um, okay . . . . so what does one do with that. It's narratively a dead fish. Give them a ton of stormtroopers at a guardpost they have to get past and hope the player jumps into the middle of them and starts swinging because they're courageously reckless? That's nice - can I get back to the Hutt threatening your family because they've fallen behind on their protection payments?

And so the players just kind of drift on up to paragon-ness.

Mind you, unlike some of the other threads that go "Oh my god! My players are Easy Paragons! Overpowered!", I don't particularly care about that status. They get an extra Destiny Point and a little bit extra strain. Big deal. The mechanic effects of Morality I have no issue with - just that it's a narrative cul de sac, a sargasso sea where good story telling goes to drift aimlessly until it dies.

I mean I guess I could hand out little bits of conflict here and there for every little thing - "You looked at that stormtrooper with anger in your heart. Have one conflict", but that sort of micromanaging bullshittery makes me feel like a nitpicking, heavy handed GM. I don't like that. And I hate the idea of having to come up with some kind of psychological torture for the players every episode just to get a rise out of them. "My master was just murdered by a sith, the hutts burned down my family farm last week, the week before we came across a blind nun being gang-raped. I wonder what terrible thing happens this week."

It feels like trolling.

There should be some kind of system in play for those big "I am a Jedi like my father before me" moments. Yes, absolutely! Moral choice is the whole cornerstone that the saga was built on. It's in the very DNA of every movie. But this mechanic simulates that very poorly.

And I just cant abandon the mechanic, since the whole light/dark pip thing on the dice pretty much depends on it. Mind you, the Jedi of the group generally shun those black pips like they were covered in cooties or something.

The point of this? Venting, I guess. It's been something I've been thinking on for a while now, something I just wanted to put down and bounce my thoughts off you guys.

The starting xp and credits isnt worth taking any of it, only take it to mold your character a certain way for role-play reasons.

48 minutes ago, Desslok said:

We're just (maybe) wrapping up our current campaign, and I can say with authority and conviction that the morality system sucks.

So I got a chance to play through my concept of a hard man who does bad things as necessary, but isn't a sadistic murderhobo and I leaned REALLY hard on the morality. Lets see how long it takes for him to fall by accident, the death of a thousand cuts.

Being an Enforcer (then Padawan from the Rebels book, and then Steel Hand), his default position was to scare the piss out of his enemies first, which was always good for a conflict or two. He would routinely use dark side pips as often as he used the light. Emergency money was just one trip to a casino and a "this is a winning hand" mindtrick away. One time he beat the everluvin **** out of some guy who was sitting on information the team badly needed (coming up with methods that made the other players go "Jesus, where did you think of that?!?"). I would often suggest "That's probably worth a conflict or two" or "yeah, this is going to be worth a bucket of conflict. Hand me the dice."

And more importantly, if nothing conflict worthy came up that session, I didn't roll. Yeah, not the rules as RAW, but it made sense.

After all of that, you know where his current morality is sitting at? 52, two above his starting point. Unless there's an unexpected swerve next (and probably last) game, even doing all this bad stuff all campaign long,, he's still on his way (very slowly) upwards. So yeah, the system as written doesn't work.

So, how much Conflict per session was he getting in total? 4? 5? More? Less? The only way you're going to guarantee Morality dropping is to earn more than 10 Conflict per session . Any less and there is always the chance of his Morality either staying the same or going up.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

We're just (maybe) wrapping up our current campaign, and I can say with authority and conviction that the morality system sucks.

So I got a chance to play through my concept of a hard man who does bad things as necessary, but isn't a sadistic murderhobo and I leaned REALLY hard on the morality. Lets see how long it takes for him to fall by accident, the death of a thousand cuts.

Being an Enforcer (then Padawan from the Rebels book, and then Steel Hand), his default position was to scare the piss out of his enemies first, which was always good for a conflict or two. He would routinely use dark side pips as often as he used the light. Emergency money was just one trip to a casino and a "this is a winning hand" mindtrick away. One time he beat the everluvin **** out of some guy who was sitting on information the team badly needed (coming up with methods that made the other players go "Jesus, where did you think of that?!?"). I would often suggest "That's probably worth a conflict or two" or "yeah, this is going to be worth a bucket of conflict. Hand me the dice."

And more importantly, if nothing conflict worthy came up that session, I didn't roll. Yeah, not the rules as RAW, but it made sense.

After all of that, you know where his current morality is sitting at? 52, two above his starting point. Unless there's an unexpected swerve next (and probably last) game, even doing all this bad stuff all campaign long,, he's still on his way (very slowly) upwards. So yeah, the system as written doesn't work.

So unless you're actively going out of your way to earn more than 6 Conflict per session, each session, then you got about the result that the designers intended, in that your "gruff but fundamentally decent" PC is in the 'grey zone' between dark side and light side.

The only flaw that I'll concede with the current Morality mechanic for how it was designed to operate is the "roll at the end of every session," of which a simple tweak to "roll at the end of every adventure" suffices. With that change, if you'd played the character the way you'd described, then he probably would have fallen to the dark side as he'd have far fewer rolls to "refresh" the count, thus giving you plenty of chances to push your dude's Conflict total above 10 and thus ensure a loss of Morality.

But also note my usage of the word "designed" in both the prior sentences. Star Wars as a genre really isn't built have characters who are truly "shades of grey" and instead the setting's own morality polarizes pretty much into good and evil, with very light shades of grey (Han and Lando) and very dark shades of grey (Boba Fett, Tobias Beckett, and quite possibly Qi'ra) in between the truly heroic (Luke, Obi-Wan, Leia) and the truly dastardly (Jabba, Emperor, Vader).

So with that in mind, the writers designed the Morality system to account that it takes dedication to truly fall to the dark side; one common complaint against the d6 system was that it could ludicrously easy for a Force user to go dark side, especially in 1e where a random die roll could have a PC go evil on their second offense. Star Wars isn't meant to replicate real-world morality scales, where people who are unilaterally good and unilaterally evil are rare than hen's teeth in a field of four-leaf clovers. As written, as long as a PC keeps their nose relatively clean by not earning a plethora of Conflict each session or is plagued by low d10 rolls, then getting to light side paragon status is simply a matter of time. And this is generally fitting with the setting in that unless you're actively doing evil deeds, most beings tend to skew more towards the "light" even if it's a light shade of grey.