20 hours ago, emsquared said:

This makes no sense to me.

The dice roll is literally the only thing that keeps the Morality system from being: "You (player) decide exactly when and if you are Light or Darkside." ie It's what keeps it from being a meaningless metacurrency to track until you get where you want to go. If you don't use the die roll, youmight as well handle Morality 100% narratively - which don't get me wrong, that is the second best way to handle Morality - but to say the die roll is what ruins the vanilla Morality system is nonsense.

So long as you are giving your PCs opportunities to use the Force and have it accomplish fantastic things, using the Fear mechanics, and paying some attention to that Table 9-2 Conflict Penalties (and creating situations and conflicts that favor those Actions as "the easy way"), the vanilla Morality system actually works very well.

I have player that ask for Conflict, that remind me of their Moral Weaknesses, that - wait for it - willingly Engage the Morality system because it's a fun way to explore the struggle of a Force User.

Just ask them to do so. Tell them (and show them) that they can trust you with their PCs story, and that the Morality system isn't a whip, but a carrot, for fun rp. It works quite well.

Given in this system there is very little mechanical difference between being light or dark side the entire thing is a worthless mechanic. In Saga edition as an example being dark side opened up the possibility for several new classes, force powers, abilities, light saber crystals or the like. In this if I want to be a light sider who mangles everything with force lightening I can and there's nothing a GM can really do to stop it aside hope a few dice rolls are crap. I think there was a thread here a year or so ago which demonstrated my point with this system, one of the PCs for fun/experimentation decided to go murder hobo, rolled really well all the time and ended up a light side paragon while slaughtering their way across the galaxy.

On the topic of fear, if memory serves fear can be resisted so if one throws enough dice at a problem it will go away. It works well to about 400 XP in my experience.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

Ha ha ha, I just tell my players, "The Force doesn't care what you think about morality."

True, but even we the fans don't know what the Force thinks about morality. With every new movie, comic, or show, we learn something new about the Force that changes how it works in relation to morality. Heck, it used to be that the Dark Side was a cancer upon the Force, and now it's a legitimate part of the Force just like the Light Side. It's hard keeping up with all of it.

I admittedly wasn't too impressed with how FFG handled Protect/Unleash. I think/agree it largely failed to create the dichotomy we might expect there.

But the only difference between Vader and Anakin was pitching the Emperor down a hole. The only thing that kept Luke (who of course used Bind to choke *******, btws) from becoming Darth Luke was a decision not to strike down his father. The only difference between Ben Solo and Kylo Ren was INSERT SPOILER HERE. And if we get into Legends, the only difference between Darth Revan and Master Revan was a memory wipe. The only thing that separated perhaps dozens of examples of Fallen Jedi from their former Jedi selves, was often one pivotal decision.

There is no grand Skillset, Talent, or Power scheme that separates Jedi from Sith, Light from Dark. It's about actions. What you're willing to do to succeed.

That said if you're truly "mangling everything" using the Force there's plenty the GM can do to reflect your Actions in Conflict, including recommending/requesting a Moral Weakness change.

I can understand not liking the Morality system, I didn't like it as a player when my GM really didn't use any part of it but the Dark pips. The I figured out how to implement it fully as a GM. It's frankly a lot of work. And that turns a lot of ppl off from it. That's why it helps immensely if you can bring the players in on it. Get their buy-in on what and why you're all doing it and it becomes much easier.

If your players are afraid of Conflict (or the GM handing it out), it's not gonna work. Or rather you might as well do it narratively, cuz it creates an adversarial relationship between player and GM and that's not good for very basic RP reasons. But if you can get them to realize it's really just another "health track", to collaborate with you on its use, it becomes an excellent narrative-facing mechanic just like Strain.

1 hour ago, Nivrap said:

True, but even we the fans don't know what the Force thinks about morality. With every new movie, comic, or show, we learn something new about the Force that changes how it works in relation to morality. Heck, it used to be that the Dark Side was a cancer upon the Force, and now it's a legitimate part of the Force just like the Light Side. It's hard keeping up with all of it.

My point is that the GM is The Force. The GM is the one that interprets the game world and sets sensible moral boundaries for Force users. Screw the movies and individual philosophies; we don't know how much Conflict any given film character was earning. Set your own guidelines according to your own sensibilities, and adjust as necessary if it starts to feel "off." Precludes a lot of headaches that way.

Also, the rules are clear that the GM must warn a player about an action's potential for Conflict before they take that action, so it's not like it's ever a "gotcha."

(For my own sensibilities, btw, I never use the term "light side." It's just "the Force" which is natural, and "the dark side," which is unnatural—a corruption/imbalance of the Force. Putting it in mystal terms helps me when adjudicating morality. YMMV)

Personally I strongly dislike the morality system

I’m the only force sensitive in the group and we are a rebel cell. I am the dodge melee tank of the group (dualist with left side sense) and therefore quickly into combat with my lightsaber

this character is unashamedly played as a goody two shoes light paragon

Im nice to people!

that shouldn’t preclude me from going into battle against someone we are at war with! I understand that I’m killing people but war sucks - otherwise why didn’t the entire Jedi order become dark during the clone wars - why didn’t Luke swap when he blew the death star up etc etc

it should IMHO be narrative but obviously I do what my gm wants - their game and I’m loving the rest of it too much to let this rubbish part spoil it

The Morality mechanic is probably the most difficult for players and GMs to implement because it requires buy-in and work from both parties. This is a contrast from Obligation and Duty which just simply work in terms of mechanical effects; if a PC's Obligation gets triggered, they take a hit to their strain threshold as does the rest of the group, and if a PC's Duty is triggered, everyone gets a boost to wound threshold. Granted, there's whole plotting out how the Obligation/Duty impacts the session (which is why it's been suggested to make the roll after the most recent session so that the GM has time to plan), but that's more on the GM with the player not really needing to get involved.

Morality however is a different beast because it's more of a roleplaying element to the character, and as noted requires effort from both the GM and the player to make it work, to say nothing of Conflict needing a bit more input from the GM as to determine just how bad a transgression is.

Granted, how bad a "dark side transgression" should be has been a thorn in Star Wars RPGs since the bygone days of the D6 system, where dark side points were a huge deal (6 or more and your character becomes an NPC per RAW). Gary M. Sarli wrote a Jedi Councilor article for Saga Edition that I think gave a pretty solid set of bullet points about judging just how serious a transgression a PC's actions were and if it was worth a dark side point. You could probably apply those guidelines to the Conflict system, with the more bullet points the character's action meets the more Conflict that action merits, especially if used in tandem with the suggested Conflict values in the core rulebook.

1 hour ago, Random Bystander said:

Personally I strongly dislike the morality system

I’m the only force sensitive in the group and we are a rebel cell. I am the dodge melee tank of the group (dualist with left side sense) and therefore quickly into combat with my lightsaber

this character is unashamedly played as a goody two shoes light paragon

Im nice to people!

that shouldn’t preclude me from going into battle against someone we are at war with! I understand that I’m killing people but war sucks - otherwise why didn’t the entire Jedi order become dark during the clone wars - why didn’t Luke swap when he blew the death star up etc etc

it should IMHO be narrative but obviously I do what my gm wants - their game and I’m loving the rest of it too much to let this rubbish part spoil it

There's a difference between instigating an unneeded battle and enacting a rescue. As a Force Senstive you are literally one of the agents of this extra magical entity that is being dispatched to correct some wrong in the galaxy. Is going into battle the only option you have at your disposal? Or could you use your talents for stealth to literally walk in and create an opening for a softer takedown? In Luke's case getting into a star fighter and destroying the death star was the only way to prevent countless millions dying, nor did he do it malciously thus it was fine.

Truly though penalising people for trival reasons doesn't sit well for myself; the main interest for me is the potentially interesting situations that crop up. For example I once had to go undercover and ended up in a room with a scientist who wired Gand into the starfighter and navicomputer. This process caused immense suffering and at this point it had become common knowledge that this was just one of many institutions that was established to exploit an entire species. I had the option of knocking him out or killing him to assume his identity to get keeper within the facility.

My character was enraged as a Rodian, disengaged his charmellion belt before executing him with a lightsaber after giving him long enough to take in who his assilent was. For Tobin his emotions got the better of him as he not only saught to kill the scientist but did it in a way that filled his last few seconds with terror. He is not a bad man but he is a morally bankrupt individual who was made conflicted by the great enemy he fought. If the GM isn't presenting situations like this with some regularity, the power to exercise your powers to destroy rivals instead of merely disabling them, then the morality system just doesn't work without having challanging situations presented; sometimes walking the emotionally stable route is trusting that the galaxy will deal with him appropriately, rather then becoming judge jury and executioner in every incidence.

5 hours ago, Random Bystander said:

Personally I strongly dislike the morality system

I’m the only force sensitive in the group and we are a rebel cell. I am the dodge melee tank of the group (dualist with left side sense) and therefore quickly into combat with my lightsaber

this character is unashamedly played as a goody two shoes light paragon

Im nice to people!

that shouldn’t preclude me from going into battle against someone we are at war with! I understand that I’m killing people but war sucks - otherwise why didn’t the entire Jedi order become dark during the clone wars - why didn’t Luke swap when he blew the death star up etc etc

it should IMHO be narrative but obviously I do what my gm wants - their game and I’m loving the rest of it too much to let this rubbish part spoil it

Are you sure you've read the rules correctly? Because it's absolutely possible to stand up to your waist in lopped-off limbs without getting a single point of conflict for it.

Going by the table regarding violence stuff:
-Resorting to violence as the first solution: If your plans are mostly "sneak in, do stuff, sneak out", that's not really likely to hit you. But yeah, some plans may well get that point.
-Coercion and threatening with Violence: Possible, though you said you're mostly the nice guy - plus, the conflict points are reduced when you do it to avert a fight.
-Unnecessary destruction: Most of what the rebellion does to imperial installations should be classified as necessary destruction.
-Unprovoked violence or assault: Again, "unprovoked", "for no reason" - not likely if you deserve your good guy label.
-Unnecessary cruelty to non-sapients: Kicked any banthas lately?
-Torture: Okay, here we get to the first action that has no qualifying statements attached. Torture bad, mkay?
-Murder: "Killing someone who is helpless or no threat to the PCs". Do you regularly execute people who are already down or who try to surrender? If so, let your non-force-sensitive people do that and eat the 1-point-Knowing-Inaction version - or just don't murder people.

I'd say that depending on how long a war goes and how desperate it becomes, it's absolutely possible for a jedi to fall - just like it's absolutely possible for a normal rebel to go Gererra when times are dark enough. But it's not automatic by far and the rule system doesn't make it that either.

Rescuing a prisoner during transport when your teammate mines the roads and we rush in to rescue - not sure how you do that sneaky ?

Feign an attack from one side, then swoop in from the other while the imps are distracted?

Or, alternatively: Just eat the measly 1 point of conflict. As long as you don't take more than 5 per session on average, you're reasonably safe from falling.

14 hours ago, Random Bystander said:

Personally I strongly dislike the morality system

I’m the only force sensitive in the group and we are a rebel cell. I am the dodge melee tank of the group (dualist with left side sense) and therefore quickly into combat with my lightsaber

this character is unashamedly played as a goody two shoes light paragon

Im nice to people!

that shouldn’t preclude me from going into battle against someone we are at war with! I understand that I’m killing people but war sucks - otherwise why didn’t the entire Jedi order become dark during the clone wars - why didn’t Luke swap when he blew the death star up etc etc

it should IMHO be narrative but obviously I do what my gm wants - their game and I’m loving the rest of it too much to let this rubbish part spoil it

Do you attack them first without giving them a chance to surrender? Because that's worth conflict, not much though. Do you let them surrender or rend aid to injured enemy soldiers after a battle? Because if not, that's conflict. Are you willing to let your friends die rather than use dark side points to bend the force to confirm to your attachments? Because if not, that's dark side.

The dark side is not only hurting people. It's the quick side to the power to do what you want, even if that is helping people that are close to you. Or hurting people that are hurting people close to you. The dark side doesn't start with "Unlimited PowerTM" for most people, it starts with a bad dream of someone close to you dying. But with the right force pips you can prevent that, you can save them. If only you're willing to pay the price. Or if the force is with you.

A solution to keeping the element of chance in order to make it impossible to calculate what to get away with, yet mitigating the feeling unfairness could perhaps be to roll a single D10 that applies to all PCs, rather than rolling individually.

15 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Gary M. Sarli wrote a Jedi Councilor article for Saga Edition that I think gave a pretty solid set of bullet points about judging just how serious a transgression a PC's actions were and if it was worth a dark side point. You could probably apply those guidelines to the Conflict system, with the more bullet points the character's action meets the more Conflict that action merits, especially if used in tandem with the suggested Conflict values in the core rulebook.

Yes indeed, it's Jedi Counseling 111. Good article, you can find it on the Googles.

On 12/31/2017 at 7:31 PM, Sir Reginold said:

Does anyone have advice for how to convince my gm to roll morality more often, and perhaps give more regular conflict?

I'll answer this part.

Morality is not like Obligation and Duty. It's not a reward/penalty system like they are. It's a narrative system, with some mechanical effects tacked on. Morality is designed to represent and embody the type of stories you see in the Star Wars franchise of Force Users. You can be a Paragon of Light. You can struggle with the pull to both sides of the Force. You can fall into darkness (and still keep your character). The Morality system is a tool for the player to use and for the GM to use to help that player tell the story they want to tell. You can even tell a story of redemption from the dark side with the morality system. It is not meant to be "gamed" to be able to do darkside things and come away smelling like a jedi rose, it's meant for the player to honestly think about their character's thoughts, emotions and actions and actively decide how far are they willing to go for their goals? Will they take a difficult path that leads to enlightenment or an easy path that leads to suffering? Whatever they choose, they need to be willing to accept the Conflict that is (or isn't) rewarded. The GM should really only take part in the Morality system by the way it's written for them to: to inform a player of a conflict-worthy action. Beyond that, it should all be the player's choice regarding what they will do. The GM, of course, should enforce rules should they be necessary but if the player buys into using it from the get-go, there shouldn't be an issue. It's not a punishment system for the GM to throw stuff at a player because the decision to accept Conflict by taking actions worthy of it is always left in the player's hands. The GM should also take a look at the table for Conflict in the book and consider altering or adding in things that fit their views. I personally think intentionally critically injuring opponents is worthy of at least a point of Conflict and that choosing to harm someone when you could instead destroy their weapons or remove them from the battle without physical injury would also be worthy of conflict. Those aren't listed on the table but for my table they feel appropriate.

With that, it does require effort on the part of the player and the GM, so if the player isn't willing to utilize the system or the GM isn't interested in using it, they should come up with a compromise that suits their gaming table. Whether that means removing the system, replacing it or the player choosing to play a non-force user, those options (among others) could work for a compromise depending on the situation.

On 1/3/2018 at 2:25 AM, Earl_of_Madness said:

I hear this so much about the Morality system of this RPG and I have yet to see it. Though I think its more of a problem with the diverse number of players in our group and our GM trying to cater to everyone in that group. I feel this slightly random system has a few too many glitches in it especially for very involved RPers like me who do everything in game for a reason especially when mixed with players who are less inclined to do so, are more shy, or only do so in certain situations (nothing wrong with that just different playstyles). Our GM wants to treat everyone equally but in that way it may not always be fair just because of how the system is designed and how he tries to make an impact for all Players.

As a very involved RPer I don't ever game the system as this metagaming to paragon isn't very much fun however it does get very frustrating when a player who exploits fear, loves battle, and relishes in killing and conflict ends up gaining more conflict than I do over the course of a session and then he just happens to be on a stroke of luck and happens to always gain morality while I use conflict in a way that makes sense for my character and has meaningful story impact and yet I constantly have bad luck and lose morality. This is especially true when my character goes out of his way to help others or find alternative ways to solve conflict without violence and yet still i lose morality because i'm stuck in a bad situation or a worse situation such as 2 sessions ago when talking to a war profiteer that my character didn't want any part of and didn't want to actively endorse the planetary civil war (and therefore secretly sabotaged the weapons) I either have to use the dark side force bind power to get someone to back down or allow full blown violence and death to innocents (hostages and slaves) break out and gain more conflict by standing by. Another player tends to be quiet and as a result only makes one or two moral choices a game and has a pretty difficult morality to use a lot of use (Cleverness/Sophism) and has largely skated their way deep into paragon after only 6 sessions. While i'm doing everything in my power to have my character make interesting moral choices and be both Emotional and Passionate and willing to use any tool able to minimize suffering, show compassion, and be a beacon of hope. Or be a rage-filled and spiteful individual if he gets pushed too far or buttons get pushed by the GM. Yet i'm not rewarded for my moments of Moral Strength but instead I'm constantly getting bad rolls on morality in all 6 sessions my character hasn't rolled more than a 5 and usually rolls lower. While the other force users roll 6+ most of the time.

I don't blame them for what they are doing or how they are playing their characters but I feel like the system needs a bit of tweaking for my style of play or needs to be a little less random since I don't actively want to game the system and want to have this character evolve naturally but I am just feeling completely undermined by the roll of the dice and my good actions are being completely overshadowed by what few dark actions I take to either create interesting story moments or take the path of least conflict. The GM has expressed the same sentiments that he feels the system isn't as fair to me because I go out of my way to trigger and involve my character's morality but he uses the vanilla system for the sake of the other players until he can work something out better for me.

I probably wouldn't be complaining so much If i didn't see both sides of the extreme, one player who is clearly very dark still gaining morality while another skates to paragon while i'm stuck with bad luck falling deeper into the darkside. It feels awful. I wouldn't feel so bad If i was somewhere between the two of them but i'm not and that is why i'm having issues with this system and so is the person who skated to paragon and so is the person who is actively dark but not getting the fruits of those dark acts. However if the GM slowed down the dice rolls to once per adventure it would punish me more because I engage a lot with the morality system even more than my fellow players.

My GM and I are at a loss of what to do.

Once again though; if that other player is doing all of those high Conflict worthy things, he should easily be earning far more than ten Conflict per session, potentially per action. As a result this guy should be guaranteed to fall rather quickly in fact.

On 1/4/2018 at 5:26 AM, Random Bystander said:

Personally I strongly dislike the morality system

I’m the only force sensitive in the group and we are a rebel cell. I am the dodge melee tank of the group (dualist with left side sense) and therefore quickly into combat with my lightsaber

this character is unashamedly played as a goody two shoes light paragon

Im nice to people!

that shouldn’t preclude me from going into battle against someone we are at war with! I understand that I’m killing people but war sucks - otherwise why didn’t the entire Jedi order become dark during the clone wars - why didn’t Luke swap when he blew the death star up etc etc

it should IMHO be narrative but obviously I do what my gm wants - their game and I’m loving the rest of it too much to let this rubbish part spoil it

The morality does not preclude you from killing people. Murdering someone will cause conflict. Killing them in the defense of others will not. It is a common mistake. It is rather like how people think the commandment is Thou shall not kill. THat is incorrect. The Commandment is thou shall not murder.

I have an idea on how to eliminate the RNG of the system, but it is still very rough. What if conflict is awarded, but doesn't do anything till the end of a story arc or milestone? Rather, it stays there like a weight on your mind. That conflict WILL lower your morality by an equal amount if you do not "resolve" the conflict. For this system to work, there has to be a second awarded "morality investment" (as I like to call conflict) for the light side. I'll call this "resolution". For each point of resolution a PC has by the end of a Story Arc or Milestone, their Morality increases by an equal amount. When a PC clearly makes the morally correct decision, they are rewarded a minuscule amount of resolution. However, if they make a more risky/emotionally charged decision, they are awarded a larger amount of conflict. Conflict can be "resolved" by either the PC redeeming themselves or learning from their mistakes, thus they receive two resolution for every conflict resolved. This means that in order for a character to climb to Paragon, they must dabble in the dark side in order to learn from their failures. As Yoda said in the Last Jedi, "The greatest teacher failure is."

Paragon is a very difficult rank to get to, and if the PC just says "I make the right decision cause I'm a goody two shoes (derp)" as a Paladin in D&D would, they are awarded a meager 1 point of resolution. They didn't learn from their experience, and they didn't change in the process. They still made the right decision, BUT only because a book or a jedi master told them so. And then when those paladins make the wrong choice, they receive 5 conflict. This pretty much negates all five of those correct decisions. PCs that don't change simply stay at around 50 Morality.

PCs that actively try to act in character and try to learn from failures will have a much easier time reaching Paragon than murder hobos or complacent bystanders.

3 hours ago, maverikid said:

I have an idea on how to eliminate the RNG of the system, but it is still very rough. What if conflict is awarded, but doesn't do anything till the end of a story arc or milestone? Rather, it stays there like a weight on your mind. That conflict WILL lower your morality by an equal amount if you do not "resolve" the conflict. For this system to work, there has to be a second awarded "morality investment" (as I like to call conflict) for the light side. I'll call this "resolution". For each point of resolution a PC has by the end of a Story Arc or Milestone, their Morality increases by an equal amount. When a PC clearly makes the morally correct decision, they are rewarded a minuscule amount of resolution. However, if they make a more risky/emotionally charged decision, they are awarded a larger amount of conflict. Conflict can be "resolved" by either the PC redeeming themselves or learning from their mistakes, thus they receive two resolution for every conflict resolved. This means that in order for a character to climb to Paragon, they must dabble in the dark side in order to learn from their failures. As Yoda said in the Last Jedi, "The greatest teacher failure is."

Paragon is a very difficult rank to get to, and if the PC just says "I make the right decision cause I'm a goody two shoes (derp)" as a Paladin in D&D would, they are awarded a meager 1 point of resolution. They didn't learn from their experience, and they didn't change in the process. They still made the right decision, BUT only because a book or a jedi master told them so. And then when those paladins make the wrong choice, they receive 5 conflict. This pretty much negates all five of those correct decisions. PCs that don't change simply stay at around 50 Morality.

PCs that actively try to act in character and try to learn from failures will have a much easier time reaching Paragon than murder hobos or complacent bystanders.

This sounds more or less like handling it completely narratively, except that you've thrown in an extra, new, made-up mechanic on top of the mechanic you didn't like in the first place to "track" the narrative.

Which just sounds like extra, new, made-up work to me.

3 hours ago, maverikid said:

I have an idea on how to eliminate the RNG of the system, but it is still very rough. What if conflict is awarded, but doesn't do anything till the end of a story arc or milestone? Rather, it stays there like a weight on your mind. That conflict WILL lower your morality by an equal amount if you do not "resolve" the conflict. For this system to work, there has to be a second awarded "morality investment" (as I like to call conflict) for the light side. I'll call this "resolution". For each point of resolution a PC has by the end of a Story Arc or Milestone, their Morality increases by an equal amount. When a PC clearly makes the morally correct decision, they are rewarded a minuscule amount of resolution. However, if they make a more risky/emotionally charged decision, they are awarded a larger amount of conflict. Conflict can be "resolved" by either the PC redeeming themselves or learning from their mistakes, thus they receive two resolution for every conflict resolved. This means that in order for a character to climb to Paragon, they must dabble in the dark side in order to learn from their failures. As Yoda said in the Last Jedi, "The greatest teacher failure is."

Paragon is a very difficult rank to get to, and if the PC just says "I make the right decision cause I'm a goody two shoes (derp)" as a Paladin in D&D would, they are awarded a meager 1 point of resolution. They didn't learn from their experience, and they didn't change in the process. They still made the right decision, BUT only because a book or a jedi master told them so. And then when those paladins make the wrong choice, they receive 5 conflict. This pretty much negates all five of those correct decisions. PCs that don't change simply stay at around 50 Morality.

PCs that actively try to act in character and try to learn from failures will have a much easier time reaching Paragon than murder hobos or complacent bystanders.

The whole point of the rng is to make gaming the system not possible. Your solution is to make.the system gamable and more complicated.

Again, still very rough. Really there's no right way to handle this system.

I've toyed with the idea of changing the morality system myself, it always seems to come out to another system that has as much or more work than the currently working system.

My most recent idea was for there to be temptations every time a player uses the opposite side of the Force and failing those can snowball you into falling dark or heading to the light.

Another idea would be to track both Conflict-worthy actions (dark side points) and Selfless actions (light side points), compare the two and take the difference. It's very similar to the current Morality system except it removes the RNG of the roll and means the player needs to actually accomplish good deeds to earn their Morality back. The problem lies in how easy it should be to earn light side points, as if there are entries that are as powerful as murder (10+ conflict, highly suggesting GM's award more than 10) but for the light, that would mean a single good deed could actually cancel out a murder, which doesn't feel right at all (but hey, I guess that happened at the end of Return of the Jedi with Vader redeeming a lifetime of evil by saving his son [and also because he sacrificed himself]).

There really isn't any simple way to make a satisfying change to the Morality system IMO. One could scrap the thing entirely, though that doesn't really accomplish what one intends when looking at modifying it.

On 1/5/2018 at 4:34 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Once again though; if that other player is doing all of those high Conflict worthy things, he should easily be earning far more than ten Conflict per session, potentially per action. As a result this guy should be guaranteed to fall rather quickly in fact.

He would be doing all those high conflict things if the group and I didn't stop him. Remember the whole standing by thing? Still He can accrue over 6 conflict a game session even though we prevent most of the conflict and yet he still gains just because the dice seem to love him. He's frustrated with all the high rolls. He wants to see his character fall/be redeemed through story actions, he is rising despite the fact he is a pretty big jerk. He isn't murdering his way through everything because we keep him in check BUT I only had one conflict that session, he accrued 7. He gained 3 morality from a lucky 10, i gained none because of a 1. Both of us felt completely undermined by that system because the system didn't really represent how our characters were acting. I see what you are saying but group dynamics and having multiple force users in the party prevents his character from being outright evil, instead he is mostly just a big jerk with a love of battle who uses fear in battle (aggressor and warden templates). We fight rarely because the other force user and I don't want conflict every moment in time, unless absolutely necessary.

Overall our group just find the system very clunky and hard to work with. We are still trying to work out a solution with the current system and though we have made small fixes the large problem still remains. The random number rolls feel arbitrary and sure over long periods of time the randomness should* (KEY WORD SHOULD, DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL, that requires infinite time to really be true) even out but the fact that the randomness requires lots of sessions to be played to even level out still feels like it undermines everything, a string of lucky or unlucky rolls can just feel unpleasant for the players, that is what our group has found.

EDIT: Please Note, apart from the morality system all of the players love this star wars system and we want to see the morality system work better. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the way the morality system works if a GM put in a ton of work and players became really invested in the game/metagame that morality needs. However that system doesn't seem to work well with our particular groups needs and we want to find a solution to this problem without completely reworking it. We may have to though. A couple players in our group do you duty and obligation as well, it hasn't been a problem though so far and all of us can get on board with solutions. However our GM is wants morality to work more like duty or obligation since its less work on him with his busy schedule, but it is clear that isn't what FFG had in mind. That isn't a bad thing, but he has realized that to get the system to work as intended with a group as diverse as ours he will need to put in an enormous amount of work or really try to get all of us force users on board to a different play-style, which I know isn't why I play RPGs. Horses for courses is what I think the problem is with morality, the way its designed makes it a lot less flexible than obligation or duty, at least not without a ton more work.

Here's the thing, though. The very fact that the other members of the party actually succeed in preventing his commission of truly evil acts is what is preventing him from falling. Whether it's by physically holding him back, or simply tempering his rage, it's working to stop his fall. By the same token, if the other members try to stop him from committing evil, but fail to do so, then they are free from any Conflict that might accrue from his actions, whereas he would get full Conflict for his actions. Regardless, none of this is the "fault" of the dice.

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Here's the thing, though. The very fact that the other members of the party actually succeed in preventing his commission of truly evil acts is what is preventing him from falling. Whether it's by physically holding him back, or simply tempering his rage, it's working to stop his fall. By the same token, if the other members try to stop him from committing evil, but fail to do so, then they are free from any Conflict that might accrue from his actions, whereas he would get full Conflict for his actions. Regardless, none of this is the "fault" of the dice.

I think you are missing the point. I apologize in advance if I sound frustrated as well, because i'm very frustrated. I'm here for solutions to talk with my GM about the morality system and how to make it work rather than discuss why I hate it. I genuinely want this morality system to work and i'm interested in how other GMs run it or deal with it so it does work. emsquared (By the way thanks for those small suggestions) offered a few tweaks earlier on in the thread that did help a little bit. during this most recent session, still the glaring flaws remained BUT it was better.

The point is that he gained 7 conflict. I can Gained 1 conflict for just using a force power to STOP things from getting worse and yet he still gains 3 morality and I only gained one. Where this becomes a problem is that this type of situation has happened for the past now 7 sessions. Its frustrating. He is slowly gaining and i'm stagnant or losing just because of lucky/unlucky dice rolls. According to the laws of probability SOMETIMES that will just happen randomly but regardless of weather it does happen or not, seeing that happen hasn't felt good for either Me or the player who is gaining tons of conflict. He feels he is not suffering consequences for his actions and I feel that the dice are undermining a character who is at their core good.

Again over the course of an infinite number of sessions the laws of probability will even out and I will most definitely be light side and he will be dark side BUT the fact that the current iteration of the morality mechanic creates a situation that just doesn't feel good for any of the players session to session. This is why i'm here. We are currently working to overhaul the system BUT i'm here searching for suggestions to help the morality system play a lot better or if there is something we are missing. When it comes to game how the rules feel is just as important as how they work. I can see how on paper they work great but unfortunately in our particular case the don't feel very good for any of our players. I'm sure if the GM put in a ton of work he could get them to work somehow but that is not something he has the time to do and as a result he is beginning to not like FaD as much as EotE or AoR. I am looking for suggestions of how to play the game so that the rules feel as good as they work. While not having to home-brew an entirely new morality system.

I've only heard arguments about how the morality system should work and the principals behind it but just because it works for some groups doesn't mean it works the exact same for every other group. 7 sessions in and the morality system has soured the expectations for a game we otherwise enjoy. Granted 7 sessions probably isn't enough to judge the morality system as a whole, BUT the fact of the matter is 7 sessions in to our game the morality system has been everyone's least favorite part of the game. It feels clunky, arbitrary, and seem very restrictive to role play if you are like me and role play characters without the need for mechanics to encourage it. This doesn't mean its bad for a narrative which is probably why FFG made the system it does have some interesting narrative elements but, it just feels bad to players and that is the feedback our entire group has given. We don't like how morality feels and it tends to undermine an otherwise great session.

What i'd like is solutions to the problem or smaller tweaks, forgotten rules, unspoken methods of play, etc that make the morality mechanic work without an overhaul. I'm explaining our play sessions in the hope that other GMs can come along and give some insight into how a GM can deal with the inherent unfairness and just not very rewarding way the morality system works. Again i'm not saying that the force needs to be fair or rewarding but regardless this is a game and how the game plays comes before arbitrary rules, i'm sure a system could have been designed that captures the force and feels better for the players. I'm also sure the system can work but my GM and I don't really have any good ideas on how to fix those problems and make the morality system enjoyable without more time on his end that he cannot give.

But what you’re seeing as a “problem” is not really an inherent in problem with the system itself. Just the opposite. It was the solution to one of the biggest problems with the previous systems. That random element is a deliberate feature of the Morality system and, if removed, would result in the same problem the old systems had: a punitive Darkside Point accumulation that guarantees a decrease in Morality for even the slightest infraction, basically ensuring a character falling to the Dark Side unless he or she is a perfect “boyscout”/“girlscout” and absolute paragon of virtue.